Slate: No Faith In Science

[alexey]

...

Let me know when you want to write something similar.

Sure:

Peter relies on faith when he gets on the plane, Alexey does not.

Or how about:

Peter relies on faith when he gets on the plane because he accepts the possibility of a flying spaghetti monster knocking the plane down with his noodly appendage. Alexey does not take that possibility into consideration.

[PeterMP]

Sure:

Peter relies on faith when he gets on the plane, Alexey does not.

Or how about:

Peter relies on faith when he gets on the plane because he accepts the possibility of a flying spaghetti monster knocking the plane down with his noodly appendage. Alexey does not accept such possibilities without evidence.

 

1.  I've provided evidence that this could be a simulation in the other tread, and I'll go through it with you again if you didn't understand it the first time.  Just ask.

 

2.  I've pointed in this thread and the other that people that believe in god do have evidence, and in the other thread I posted a link where techboy lays out his argument pretty well.

 

(Both of which I've already pointed out in this thread.)

 

3.  What evidence do you have that the assumptions that under lie science are correct?  How good is that evidence?

[alexey]

1.  I've provided evidence that this could be a simulation in the other tread, and I'll go through it with you again if you didn't understand it the first time.  Just ask.

 

2.  I've pointed in this thread and the other that people that believe in god do have evidence, and in the other thread I posted a link where techboy lays out his argument pretty well.

 

3.  What evidence do you have that the assumptions that under lie science are correct?  How good is that evidence?

Do I have to have faith in science in order to use it? Do I have to use faith to get on the plane?

I say NO, you say YES. Same questions, same disagreement, same result.

I say: I do not have faith in science. I do not have faith in anything. I do not work on faith. I think faith is just a bad idea.

Yes I know the next thing you will write: oh but Alexey, when you use science, don't you have faith that it will work? Don't you have faith that the patterns will continue, that natural laws will be in place, and so on?? I say NO. I don't know whether science will work, but it's either science or GO LIVE IN THE ****ING CAVE.

[DaGoonie55]

Do I have to have faith in science in order to use it? Do I have to use faith to get on the plane?

I say NO, you say YES. Same questions, same disagreement, same result. I do not have faith in science. I do not have faith in anything. I do not work on faith. I think faith is just a bad idea.

alexey, I don't want to get into much of an arguement with you, so simple ONE word answers will do....if you care to answer my questions....

 

 

What do you call the understanding you have that if you were to jump in the air, you come back down to earth?

 

When you turn a door handle and pull the door, it opens?

 

That your credit card / debit card works, as advertised?

 

That your responses on here will get people riled up and want to come and debate with you?

 

I have a point...if your answers are what I predict....my FAITH in alexey being alexey......

[PeterMP]

Do I have to have faith in science in order to use it? Do I have to use faith to get on the plane?

I say NO, you say YES. Same questions, same disagreement, same result.

I say: I do not have faith in science. I do not have faith in anything. I do not work on faith. I think faith is just a bad idea.

 

Yes, that's right.  You don't have faith, but other people do and faith is bad, and so other people are "bad" and "wrong".

 

But you do things that you don't really want to talk about why you do them or what you believe with respect to why you do them.

 

Except it isn't based on faith.

 

You don't want to talk about what you think about/believe when you get on an airplane (unless it is like the above post which is a mischaracterization of the other people's positions and not really a positive assertion of your position), but they aren't based on faith.

[alexey]

People are good, faith is a bad idea, religion is a cognitive virus .

[PeterMP]

People are good, faith is a bad idea, religion is a cognitive virus .

 

I'm sorry. I shouldn't do that.

[alexey]

...

What do you call the understanding you have that if you were to jump in the air, you come back down to earth?

When you turn a door handle and pull the door, it opens?

That your credit card / debit card works, as advertised?

That your responses on here will get people riled up and want to come and debate with you?

I have a point...if your answers are what I predict....my FAITH in alexey being alexey......

Everything but the last one are predictions based on the model of the world that I have formed in my brain. I have no faith that the model is correct and I will change it if it fails to predict things.

[DaGoonie55]

Everything but the last one are predictions based on the model of the world that I have formed in my brain. I have no faith that the model is correct and I will change it if it fails to predict things.

 

One word answer was too tough and restrictive.....

 

I'll bow out of the conversation.  "Belief in something" is the definition of faith.  If you believe science is true, you have FAITH in science.  You are arguing semantics, IMO - which could be wrong.  I'm willing to admit that.......world would be a lot better if more would admit fault or even potential fault.

 

Good day to you alexey.

[alexey]

One word answer was too tough and restrictive.....

I'll bow out of the conversation. "Belief in something" is the definition of faith. If you believe science is true, you have FAITH in science. You are arguing semantics, IMO - which could be wrong. I'm willing to admit that.......world would be a lot better if more would admit fault or even potential fault.

Good day to you alexey.

Thanks, same to you.

This is a discussion about meaning of words, yes - because I think it would be difficult to argue that the same process is behind people taking antibiotics and flying planes, compared to people who believe god exists.

I think people who use science and do not have faith in god rightfully object to "it's all faith" arguments.

[Going Commando]

The existence of an external physical universe that is subject to natural laws and those natural laws result in reproducibility/consistentcy in the universe (though not in a completely deterministic manner necessarily- though many people, including Einstein, thought that would be the case, but today with quantum mechanics we accept that is not the case).

 

Essentially, science assumes that it is not possible for the laws of the "universe" to change by an external agent (a god, simulator, etc.)

 

And yes science finds evidence that it is true, but it doesn't really have a choice because that's the only thing it can find because that's the assumption it is built on.

 

 

**EDIT**

And this actually does get a little tricky because of how you want to define universe.  If this is a simulation, then we are part of that larger universe that includes the simulators, and if we assume in that universe there are limits too resources (which is true for our universe), then it is actually possible for science to find evidence for the simulators.

 

And people are trying to do so (I posted links in the other thread)

Interesting. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the statement that science can only find evidence that supports its underlying assumptions because it is not built to find anything else. Do you mean that science isn't equipped to examine knowledge sourced in revelation for example, because its initial assumptions render it invalid?

I saw in your discussion with alexey that you said the intensity of faith people place in science seems to be similar to the faith people place in religion. That people operate with total faith of science despite all of the potentially relevant information that our conclusions don't consider.

That's what I took away from that discussion anyway. It got me thinking that this perhaps is an issue of human psychology. I'm not we're really capable of walking around and synthesizing all of the pertinent information and considering what we don't know, so we operate on faith based assumptions that simplify decisions for us. I think we tend to go whole hog in matters of faith because it is useful for us to do so in order to act. If I was appropriately skeptical and considerate of everything, I'm not sure I could even get up and put my pants on in the morning. People put a lot of value in scientific assertions despite the assumptions underpinning it because it allows them to act, and derive more conclusions from those actions and everything seems to be reasonable and consistent.

Still an important difference between faith in the assumptions of science and faith in the assumptions of religion because of that ability to get from B to C with science.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Could you provide those links PeterMP, I'm not a fan of the whole universe is a simulation, but I haven't read enough to make a informed opinion.

[PeterMP]

Interesting. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the statement that science can only find evidence that supports its underlying assumptions because it is not built to find anything else. Do you mean that science isn't equipped to examine knowledge sourced in revelation for example, because its initial assumptions render it invalid?

 

I actually mean multiple things by that statement.  I think your statement is probably true in some cases, but as I'm sure alexey will point out there are things that science can do with respect to revelation.  For example, science can certainly test if the "revealer" believes the revelation.  Science can certainly test some of the claims made by such revelations post the revelation being revealed.

 

I think though an important point is though that is missed a lot is that if we turn science loose on a complex universe, it is going to find somethings are "true".

 

There is a going to be a false positive rate.  If I turned science loose on a universe that was COMPLETELY random in nature, it would at some level conclude that it is a lot like ours.  Things aren't completely deterministic in nature so that you can't talk about things in absolute terms in most cases, but you can talk about probabilities because there would be some false positive rate for scientific "discoveries".

 

I don't actually think this is likely to be an issue, and I suspect that we are well above the false positive rate indicating that our universe is at least somewhat non-random, but if you are going to start making positive assertions of that fact, then it would be nice to see that you've actually put some thought into the issue and considered.

 

And I don't generally see that from people making that argument.

 

 

I saw in your discussion with alexey that you said the intensity of faith people place in science seems to be similar to the faith people place in religion. That people operate with total faith of science despite all of the potentially relevant information that our conclusions don't consider.

That's what I took away from that discussion anyway. It got me thinking that this perhaps is an issue of human psychology. I'm not we're really capable of walking around and synthesizing all of the pertinent information and considering what we don't know, so we operate on faith based assumptions that simplify decisions for us. I think we tend to go whole hog in matters of faith because it is useful for us to do so in order to act. If I was appropriately skeptical and considerate of everything, I'm not sure I could even get up and put my pants on in the morning. People put a lot of value in scientific assertions despite the assumptions underpinning it because it allows them to act, and derive more conclusions from those actions and everything seems to be reasonable and consistent.

I think this is very likely true.

 

 

Still an important difference between faith in the assumptions of science and faith in the assumptions of religion because of that ability to get from B to C with science.

And that is the appeal of science.

 

Given the assumptions, we can talk about evidence in real robust terms that is not possible to otherwise.

[dchogs]

4. I'm sorry if my example of an airplane crashing bothered you given your flight tomorrow, and while I don't actually believe in the power of intercessory prayer, I will say one for the safety of your flight tomorrow.

Good luck!

No worries, brother. It was just ironic that THAT was the example being used (and that a Russian jet just had crashed).

Agree with the word game issue, and I certainly don't find the word faith or 'person of faith' insulting. To me, believing in the existence of God is very different form making the assumption (used in the common vernacular) that since the sky has been blue for thousands of years, it'll be blue tomorrow. The simulation scenario seems like a bit of forced theoretical gymnastics to me... like Leonard and Raj winding up Sheldon at the lunch table to spin him off in a series of theories that lead to a ridiculous conclusion (and a bad laugh track).

All in all, I don't really mind what people want to believe about the origins or foundations of my beliefs. Some of my first post came off as mean or snarky upon a second read. It wasn't my intent, and a few more would have helped in that. No disrespect meant and certainly none taken on my part.

[dchogs]

alexey, I don't want to get into much of an arguement with you, so simple ONE word answers will do....if you care to answer my questions....

What do you call the understanding you have that if you were to jump in the air, you come back down to earth? Reason

When you turn a door handle and pull the door, it opens? Luck (could have been a push door, a slider, a roll up, a Star Trek style, locked, etc)

That your credit card / debit card works, as advertised? Magic

That your responses on here will get people riled up and want to come and debate with you? Certainty. (For alexey, not me. I'm milquetoast.)

I have a point...if your answers are what I predict....my FAITH in alexey being alexey......

Can I play? . Answers above...

[s0crates]

Strictly speaking, reason does not tell you you will come down when you jump, experience does. It is only because it has always worked that way that you believe it will continue to do so. It is logically possible for it not to.

The only way reason tells you you will fall back to Earth is if you assume the future will resemble the past, otherwise it does not follow as a matter of logical necessity.

But what reason is there to assume the future will resemble the past? Because in the past the future resembled the past? Kind of circular, you know?

[PeterMP]

Could you provide those links PeterMP, I'm not a fan of the whole universe is a simulation, but I haven't read enough to make a informed opinion.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/373255-belief-vs-knowledge/?p=9623772

http://es.redskins.com/topic/373255-belief-vs-knowledge/?p=9626929

 

People working to test if this is a simulation:

 

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/121012/universe-computer-simulation-university-bonn-germany-matrix-beane

 

I'm also not overly tied to that particular argument.  It is useful to make the more general point of there are other possibilities than this "universe", which than relates to how "good" is the science at telling us what the future will be.

 

sOcrates is making the argument from a pretty philosophical stand point, and I agree with him, but some times it is useful to have a practical example for people to think about, and in these two threads I've defaulted this could be a simulation.

[s0crates]

sOcrates is making the argument from a pretty philosophical stand point, and I agree with him, but some times it is useful to have a practical example for people to think about, and in these two threads I've defaulted this could be a simulation.

Thanks for that.

I want to point out that I gave two simple examples, one dealing with knowing what temperature water boils at, the other borrowing your example of jumping. I actually think the problem of induction is pretty easy to understand.

As far as the simulation theory goes, there is a Harvard philosopher who is big on this. He says one of three things is true:

1. People will never develop the technology to simulate reality.

OR

2. People would never decide to simulate reality if they had the technology.

OR

3. We are probably living in a simulation now.

Edit: The philosopher is Nick Bostrom (once at Harvard, now at Oxford). He has made quite the name for himself with this.

You can find some academic journal articles by searching for his name plus "ancestor simulation."

Here is his wiki, which discusses the topic:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom

[alexey]

...But what reason is there to assume the future will resemble the past? Because in the past the future resembled the past? Kind of circular, you know?

Red-green-red-green-red-green-BLANK

You are asked to fill in the blank. What do you do and what reasons do you have for doing it?

[alexey]

...

As far as the simulation theory goes, there is a Harvard philosopher who is big on this. He says one of three things is true:

1. People will never develop the technology to simulate reality.

OR

2. People would never decide to simulate reality if they had the technology.

OR

3. We are probably living in a simulation now.

...

I am going with #2 because of the problem of evil, same reason why I reject the idea of this world being created by a loving deity.

If this world and all the suffering was created by a deity, I would not call it "loving" or even moral, according to what I understand those words to mean. I am a loving parent and a somewhat moral individual. But even at my level it would be unthinkable for me to do things god does or ignore things god ignores.

So yeah, I do not see how it would be morally defensible for people of the future to recreate all the suffering which their ancestors had to endure in order to become civilized.

[s0crates]

Red-green-red-green-red-green-BLANK

You are asked to fill in the blank. What do you do and what reasons do you have for doing it?

I would assume the future will resemble the past, and therefore guess the pattern continues (so red). The point is that the pattern continuing is not a necessary truth, it could come up blue for all I know for sure.

[s0crates]

I am going with #2 because of the problem of evil, same reason why I reject the idea of this world being created by a loving deity.

If this world and all the suffering was created by a deity, I would not call it "loving" or even moral, according to what I understand those words to mean. I am a loving parent and a somewhat moral individual. But even at my level it would be unthinkable for me to do things god does or ignore things god ignores.

So yeah, I do not see how it would be morally defensible for people of the future to recreate all the suffering which their ancestors had to endure in order to become civilized.

I agree that creating such a simulation would be unethical, I just don't share the belief that the inherent wrongness of creating such a simulation would stop people from doing it. Our track record of ethical behavior isn't so good.

[alexey]

I would assume the future will resemble the past, and therefore guess the pattern continues (so red). The point is that the pattern continuing is not a necessary truth, it could come up blue for all I know for sure.

Aren't there schools of thought in philosophy that say "necessary truth" does not exit, that understanding of patterns IS knowledge, and that application of knowledge about patterns IS reason?

From those perspective, wouldn't the "future will resemble the past" become a necessary premise to knowledge and reason, rather than a mere assumption?

[alexey]

I agree that creating such a simulation would be unethical, I just don't share the belief that the inherit wrongness of creating such a simulation would stop people from doing it. Our track record of ethical behavior isn't so good.

Arguments could be made either way. I certainly hope people of the future don't suck. I'm just saying we shouldn't blow by the other option and go "whoa simulation".

[s0crates]

Aren't there schools of thought in philosophy that say "necessary truth" does not exit, that understanding of patterns IS knowledge, and that application of knowledge about patterns IS reason?

For sure philosophy has a history of empirical thinkers like John Locke. Hume's problem of induction is perhaps the best objection to such empiricism.

Regardless, reason is something else, and I think there are some necessary truths arrived at rationally. I'll give some examples.

1. All bachelors are unmarried men.

2. Square circles are impossible.

3. A proposition cannot be both true and false.

4. 1+1=2

5. The angles of a triangle total 180 degrees.

From those perspective, wouldn't the "future will resemble the past" become a necessary premise to knowledge and reason, rather than a mere assumption?

Empirical thinkers (like those in the observational sciences) do assume this. However it is not necessary in the way those rational truths are. It is based only on experience, as contrasted from those rational truths based on reason alone.

Arguments could be made either way. I certainly hope people of the future don't suck. I'm just saying we shouldn't blow by the other option and go "whoa simulation".

Agreed. There seem to be reasons for thinking it could be any one of the three, none of which is conclusive. I do think the three part dilemma is right though. It has to be one of those.

Another thing to think about here is the possibility of simulations within simulations. Eventually we arrive at questions of the limits of computational capacity.