Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

I’m using it to encourage you to use science instead of random guessing.

Then you're not making sense.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes.


That might be true in a philosophical sense. It's not helpful in a practical sense. We can verify facts about the universe through the scientific method and figure out what is real and what is not.

But you don’t want to use science.

Instead, you rely on guessing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. I haven't mentioned anything about it.

Well, yes you have and I will know find the posts.

You observe logic by learning about it. Your second question is unclear. You can determine aspects of a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts. Deciding on your moral standpoint requires your opinion.

There is a strong, external, objective standard for science. That's why science is the same in every country and culture. A Chinese scientist follows the same scientific principles as an American one, as an Algerian one, as a Danish one, as an Indian one, etc. That's why it works so well and why it produces things like computers, space travel, airplanes, etc.

The 3rd post here talk about aonther kind of observation in effect than observing logic. " strong, external, objective standard" invloves observation. That was by point. In effect you used 2 different version of observe.

Well, you take the worldview, learn about it and run its claims through logic and objective facts about the world.

But to observe logic and objective facts is not the same kind of observation. That is my point. The latter is natural science in part, the former is if you want formal science and not natural science.

 

[PureX]

There are no "scientism cultists".

Don't all cultists say that?

There are people who accept science.

What does that even mean? Science is part of our reality. Like the weather. We may agree or disagree with SOME aspects of it, but who doesn't "accept it"? The Amish? Even saying that is a very weird, cult-like thing to say.

Science helps us determine objective facts about the universe. Through science we determined the speed of light, for instance.

Well, we think we did. And we think it's important. But we also thought the Earth was flat, and we thought that we important, too.

"Truth" is a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

It's more our opinion of truth that's subjective (because it's ours). The truth is (by definition) 'what is'. That's not subjective. It's holistic, universal, and absolute. It's an ideal, like infinity, or perfection, or even 'God'.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion.

No, it's just a new proposition to be tested.

It's not a hypothesis, although it can lead to another hypothesis. It is not truth, but it is proof (in the informal sense).

Pfffft!

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Then you're not making sense.

It won’t make any sense until you stop rejecting science in favor of guessing.

And I don’t have any problems with guessing.

It’s just that this method just failed you.

So why not turn to science, instead?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. I haven't mentioned anything about it.

Well, yes you have and I will know find the posts.

You observe logic by learning about it. Your second question is unclear. You can determine aspects of a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts. Deciding on your moral standpoint requires your opinion.

There is a strong, external, objective standard for science. That's why science is the same in every country and culture. A Chinese scientist follows the same scientific principles as an American one, as an Algerian one, as a Danish one, as an Indian one, etc. That's why it works so well and why it produces things like computers, space travel, airplanes, etc.

The 3rd post here talk about aonther kind of observation in effect than observing logic. " strong, external, objective standard" invloves observation. That was by point. In effect you used 2 different version of observe.

Well, you take the worldview, learn about it and run its claims through logic and objective facts about the world.

You don't observe logic and objective facts in the same sense. And logic is not natural science, it is fomal science in some sense.

 

[Magic Man]

But you don’t want to use science.

Instead, you rely on guessing.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I used the example of asking two people vs. doing a scientific poll of 1,500 people. The first option would not be scientific. I do want to use science, and I'm not guessing. That's my whole point.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes.


That might be true in a philosophical sense. It's not helpful in a practical sense. We can verify facts about the universe through the scientific method and figure out what is real and what is not.

Right, and we can understand that experience is real. I imagine the divides would transform into better understanding of our ancestry and human history. As an academic, or as a film director, or screenplay writer assigned the task of illustrating the legitimacy of human history and religion, it would be quite a change in presentation to give it due diligence and apply practical understanding to the "mythos" association. The evidence isn't so much lacking, but the presentation of the history may be.

Question: Why do so many religions have such a dedicated and large following?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I used the example of asking two people vs. doing a scientific poll of 1,500 people. The first option would not be scientific. I do want to use science, and I'm not guessing. That's my whole point.

Well, how you ask a question and how you find people and how you account for those who won't partake in your sample can all change the result of the poll. I do believe there is even more than what you used in your example. But you got the basics right.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I used the example of asking two people vs. doing a scientific poll of 1,500 people. The first option would not be scientific. I do want to use science, and I'm not guessing. That's my whole point.

How do you know that your sample was not as skewed as mine?

In any case, your reply was to my post, not to your own.

My Evidence A.

Interesting that your small random sample of cardinality two included two people who you happened to know.

That was quite a coincidence.

 

[Magic Man]

But you don’t want to use science.

Instead, you rely on guessing.

I do want to use science. I'm explaining science and why it's so useful. I have not said anything that relies on guessing. This makes no sense. I gave an example of two different kinds of evidence, pointing out that one is better. The better method did not rely on guessing, which is why it was better.

 

[Magic Man]

How do you know that your sample was not as skewed as mine?

Your reply was to my post, not to your own.

In my original example? Because it was a scientific poll with a sample of 1,500 people, instead of a sample of two non-random people.

 

[Magic Man]

How do you know that your sample was not as skewed as mine?

In any case, your reply was to my post, not to your own.

My Evidence A.

Interesting that your small random sample of cardinality two included two people who you happened to know.

That was quite a coincidence.

What? I think you misunderstood my post. I gave two examples of evidence to point out why they were unequal. The small sample size of two people was the bad evidence. The good evidence was the poll of 1,500 random people.

 

[Magic Man]

Don't all cultists say that?

Probably, but that's not helpful.

What does that even mean? Science is part of our reality. Like the weather. We may agree or disagree with SOME aspects of it, but who doesn't "accept it"? The Amish? Even saying that is a very weird, cult-like thing to say.

Well, we think we did. And we think it's important. But we also thought the Earth was flat, and we thought that we important, too.

It's more our opinion of truth that's subjective (because it's ours). The truth is (by definition) 'what is'. That's not subjective. It's holistic, universal, and absolute. It's an ideal, like infinity, or perfection, or even 'God'.

No, it's just a new proposition to be tested.

Pfffft!

A lot of people don't accept science. There are people who deny climate change and evolution for example.

Some people thought the earth was flat at one point. Since then, we developed ways to determine whether that's true and so verified that it's not.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion. It is not a new hypothesis or proposition.

 

[Pogo]

There are no "scientism cultists". There are people who accept science. Science helps us determine objective facts about the universe. Through science we determined the speed of light, for instance. "Truth" is a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion. It's not a hypothesis, although it can lead to another hypothesis. It is not truth, but it is proof (in the informal sense).

I would disagree to the extent that there are people who do not understand science like @PureX to the extent that they take scientific understanding to be "truth" and so become "scientism cultists".

 

[wellwisher]

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural.
You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it.
So the evidence for what science is, is not indepedent of humans and has an elemant of being internal.
Now here is some Danish text about what science is in this culture:
"Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.

I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

If you google translate you get this:
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

The key words for non-natural science being to understand from the inside.
And now I can ask this: For the claim that evidence matters, is that that evidence matters, with evidence from the method of natural science or is it a case of understanding it from the inside?

The same applies to what science is and what religion is, as in part both are about understanding from the inside using different norms for how to do so.
E.g. that there must be evidence as per natural science if I claim something, is not with evidence, but a norm for how I ought to behave.

So here is a very simple internal rule I use for the universe. Is it external or internal? If external, use natural science. If internal use more than natural science.
And now as a reductio ad absurdum. Since only the external is true and real, the parts in this text about internal understanding is not real at all. In fact, there are not even here as text and you are right now delusional as only the external is true and real.

So here is a simple test for internal. If it is internal, check if other humans can understand it differently. It is that simple.
And then please don't do the following becuase it works in both direction: If I can't understand what matters to you, then it doesn't matter to you. But it is different when it matters to me, because I am special and you are not.

And yes, how external and internal relates to each other, is so far as for all claims I have ever read internal. Regardless of science, religion or philosophy claimed as internal method. Not that there is no external part to the universe, but that there is no evidence, that it is the only part.

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

Our sensory systems are there for input data. The thalamus region of the brain processes all this data first; besides smell, and then distributes it to be processed further in the cerebral matter. The thalamus also triggers awareness, that can make some data stand out for further investigation. This helps the inner animal find what it needs. As a child I was good at finding four leaf clovers in the summer I could look down and my thalamus or inner self would pull my eye right to them; subliminal data narrowed to my need.

If we put aside the inner self and thalamus; unconscious mind, the input data is processed, by the ego, internally, based on our learned foundation premises and how we have consciously built on that foundation over time. This explains why people from the ancient times, when they saw the sun rise and set, attributed that to the god Helios. It did not mean they did not see the same hard data we see. Rather they internally processed the same data we see, in that way, due to their ancient education. Smart people with a weak foundation can look not as smart.

Consensus thinking is not the final say, if all have learned the same filters. Falsification is important to science and a real scientist will try to falsify; buck the herd, so he is not a consensus herd animal. If this effort fails, it is added to the filter.

There is an effect of the mind I like to call sensory expectation. The internal programming; inner self or conscious belief system filter, like computer logic, already has its (if and do loops) set up. This will impact how you will interpret, even before you see the data. This is common to political foundation premises and filters, where two sets of people interpret the same data summary, in different ways, and both can justify their position, since the cart; internal foundation, came before the horse; sensory input; political bias.

When some Atheists or Religious listen to the arguments from the other side, this input data is automatically structured by their internal foundation, to the point where there are no exceptions; unconscious structured analysis. Racism also works this way.

Let me give an example of the filter paradox. The classic nuclear family is the most efficient social unit for taking care of social needs, especially if that nuclear family involves three generations; children, parents and grandparents. We can run science experiments to prove this. We can survey a wide range of real life people in all the various social constructs. Because religion claimed this first, Atheism, who claims to be based on science, will deny the results of this science. While some in religion will deny the need for science tests, but prefer to believe this was the word of God and does not need proving.

Many years ago, as a younger man, I started to understand how the mind works, down to the inner self. What we see; senses, is molded by what we believe and other internal logic built on our foundation premises and human nature. We create our own reality this way. I decided to put on the intellectual coveralls and go down into the sub basement of my mind, to look at my foundation premises, to make sure everything was sound; up to code, before building even more.

Like a house, the foundation may be designed for a nice two story house. If you try to build up, two more stories, the house may sag, unless you add more support structure. This is when old theory and old ways start to fall apart or be overhauled. In my case, my effort triggered an unconscious train of thought that extrapolated and my old house of knowledge collapsed. I had to rebuild again from scratch; set a cornerstone. Now I have a more sturdy foundation that includes the inner self and its subliminal processing areas.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I do want to use science. I'm explaining science and why it's so useful. I have not said anything that relies on guessing. This makes no sense. I gave an example of two different kinds of evidence, pointing out that one is better. The better method did not rely on guessing, which is why it was better.

I gave another example of two different kinds of evidence.

You rejected the one due to your unwillingness to consider what science has to say about it.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that is your opinon. I accept that as long as you don't claim that it is objective or what not.

Accept what, his version or mine? Why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Accept what, his version or mine? Why?

No, that they are different versions which can't be judged using an objective standard.
There is no objective standard for what science is.

 

[Magic Man]

I gave another example of two different kinds of evidence.

You rejected the one due to your unwillingness to consider what science has to say about it.

You never gave another example. You asked what was wrong with Evidence A in response to my post. I explained what was wrong with it. Then you started talking about your poll and methods, which didn't make sense.

So, what is wrong with Evidence A in my example is that it's likely to give an inaccurate result. If you want to talk about a different example, present the example.