Trust and religious faith/belief are two different things.
This has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums before and for those who equate those two concepts, well, there is no helping them.
They are either too stupid to understand the difference or too dishonest to admit that it is there.
They are not the same, and as a courtesy I'll assume that is not what you meant.
I can understand the distinctions in the terms you are using. But I feel, strongly, they are very similar and not as different as you and perhaps others have presumed. Perhaps the only item I may add in, which is either world of difference to you, or is not different (I dunno), is I would desire to compare Trust with spiritual faith. Belief and trust are very similar. According to dictionary.com, the 3rd definition for belief is: confidence; faith;
trust. And lo and behold, in there is faith.
So, while you and others may have had discussions ad nauseam on this topic, I am asking the discussion to be re-opened here on this thread. If that doesn't jive with you, I'll be glad to go to other threads if you care to link me there and we can discuss it there. I will just stipulate that I will have some (more like slight) desire to come from dictionary definition (which currently appears to agree with my position) and main desire to come from spirituality that I understand, and that I find to be rational. If your desire is to (perhaps) pigeon hole me into some old school (religious) version of faith and belief, I would call that most unwise. Akin to being too stupid or too dishonest to understand other ways to approach this topic.
Well, observation in one form or another is the only thing we've got.
I'm sure as hell not going to take into account what some nutjob dreamed up in his own mind while meditating as part of how I see reality.
Then I would call that irrational, ignoring the available evidence, and akin to being too stupid or too dishonest to understand other ways to approach the integrity of science and scientific method. Sure you can slough it off to 'nutjob dreamt up in own mind' but there are methods to meditating that can be / have been substantiated. You don't have to use these methods to arrive at 'truth' as you may wish to frame that, but do let's be clear that it is truth as you may
wish to see it. The bias is grossly obvious. And it is variation of nutjob imagination at work, if we are looking to speak in terms of disrespect rather than that of civility.
The plural of anecdote is not data, and personal testimony is considered the very lowest form of evidence, if at all, in science. Hence, anecdotes are not sufficient and are generally not used at all.
That has only a little to do with what I was noting. I was talking about collective knowledge and how anecdotes have a place in that. I would hope you wouldn't make the grossly ignorant claim that science is the totality of human knowledge. If so, I shall like to come back to your "absolute certainty" claims and how that relates to scientific knowledge. Though, I'm guessing you back off of whatever point you were attempting to make here, realizing the hole you are digging.
As for the story about Newton it is, as you say, unverifiable, but it is also irrelevant with regards to whether Newton's theories are correct or not.
It is like saying (as some Creationists sometimes do) that Darwin had a deathbed conversion, a story that is actually somewhat verifiable as false, but even if it wasn't, or worse, even if it was true, that impacts not at all on whether his ideas on Evolution are correct or not.
I think I made the point earlier that Newton's apple story is irrelevant to Newton's theories. I don't see it as all that similar to Darwin story you raise. Would be more similar if Darwin, while on his deathbed, allegedly had epiphany, which in turn led him to constructing theory of evolution. The epiphany would be interesting, and have a place in collective knowledge (IMO), but would still be not necessary to allude to with regards to what the theory explanation is stating. Though I'm sure you know if it were this way, old school creationists would forever and a day be having a field day with that version of events. Let us be glad, that is not the case.
All experience is on some level personal, however, in science, if you want me to believe your claim you need more than that.
You need to be able to show me the same experience that you had, which makes it objective. And that's the kind of evidence we use in science.
That is not what makes it objective. And if you want me to believe your claim (of what objectivity means), I will ask that you present more than the data you have offered so far. Same experience? Ha. I could do that with meditation in the vein materialistic science does in a heartbeat. Close your eyes. Hear nothing? Yep, same experience I've had. We'll call
that objective. Seriously, you gotta bring to the table a better understanding of objective than that. That is child's play.
Metaphysics is not science.
True, they are related, but they are not the same.
Either way, what you are describing is not objective.
Metaphysics and science are both branches of philosophy, and is what I was alluding to. We are talking in broader topics of belief, knowledge, faith, trust and facts. The testable / verifiable methods (for introspection) that I referenced before are objective. Far more so in the way that I believe you are using the term, even while I would concede they are perhaps not truly objective. So far, you haven't presented anything remotely close to true objectivity. But on that sort of standard, I'll admit that my bar is very high. What makes materialism science 'work' (for explanation, growing understanding) doesn't need true objectivity. Consensus will do just fine.
We can't have any clown with his pet theory of the cosmos and quantum consciousness come in and act as if what he is doing is accepted science, because it is not. And until he can back his claims up with solid evidence, he is, by definition of the Null Hypothesis, talking ox manure.
Hence the dogma I referenced before. "Accepted" science doesn't make for objective rationale, but for consensual understanding. This works. This has place in collective knowledge. But if honestly observing the basis for this philosophy, it is based on an assumption that is held, rather firmly mind you, by faith. As I've stated numerous times, that statement of faith is that the physical world is self evident. The mental gymnastics that would go into establishing that as something more than (mere) assumption would, and continually does, result in persons who rather not talk about it since the axiom is just so firmly established, or if showing honest willingness to discuss / debate does lead to realization that it is faith based philosophy. The resulting explanations / conclusions from the first axiom, carry with them a sense of rationality that is (self contained) logic, empirical and consensual. But it is not (necessarily) objectively reasonable. It is swayed by personal interpretations, prejudices and perceptions that are dependent of the observer(s).
Feel free to challenge this. I relish in the idea that someone, anyone reading this can challenge it.
The physical world is all we have, and whether you like it or not, science works in this physical world.
Really? Show me this 'science' thing of which you speak. Where in the physical world might I find this science thing.
No, science works in the mind, is a mental construct and is overlaid (by some) onto the perceptual order (physicality) in attempt to reach rational conclusions, and workable explanations about how physical phenomena and physical processes APPEAR to operate.
When you can provide truly objective evidence for the physical world, I'll be here, with strong willingness to substantiate that. So far in this challenge I've put forth, humanity is batting .000.
Science, as I understand it (routinely) is neutral. It doesn't need to be fit into only perceptual order of 'world outside' and the pretend faith of 'existence independent of the mind.' It can include that, observably does in shared reality, but science can be applied to introspection. Within consciousness, and with observation that doesn't rely on the body's senses, there are hypothesis that can be / have been made, which are testable and verifiable. That you don't want to test / verify these because of your bias / prejudice is completely up to you, not science. Your subjective rationale for not applying science to this domain of collective knowledge is 'par for the course' for those who show up to me as 'asleep at the wheel.'
There is absolutely no reason to think that there is anything other than this physical world.
Hence, unless it's backed by scientific evidence, I do not include it into my view of reality.
Then there is no science for you. No scientific method. No mathematics. No Love. No Justice. And list goes on. These things are not observable in the physical world. Find me scientific method in the physical world and I'll perhaps believe your preposterous claim that there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything other than this physical world.
Good luck (nutjob).
