Faith is necessary for Science to function

[McBell]

Problem with forums... no one likes to stay on topic .

Not even the ones asking to stay on topic...

 

[bobhikes]

Perhaps if people would stop sugar coating the same old worn out "arguments" and actually come up with something new...

But then that is one of the big problems with trying to reduce science to nothing but faith.

As was already stated in the fifth post of this thread:

The attempt to insist that science requires faith is merely a reverse attempt to place science on par with faith itself as being equally valid. the inference being that if something as reliable and important as 'science' is actually a matter based simply on faith, then whatever religion the person positing this, has, it MUST be valid, because it possesses faith!

​

And yet this is not a problem with science but with those who take the same blind faith in science as theists do in their beliefs of god.


And here you are merely trying to reduce science to the same level as your faith.

Why is it that you are not trying to bring your faith up to the same level of science?
Is it that you are afraid it cannot be done?

I'll have you know I learned the meaning of a new word. Intersubjective useless yes but I learned something. Good thread.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

I hardly need absolute knowledge to say, "I have never seen anything to suggest a God."

Also, science technically doesn't depend on anything existing; it constructs useful models, not necessarily true ones. (This is also where the mess of interpretations about what QM "actually" means come from. Shut up and calculate. )

That sentence gives me a headache, lol. Are you saying objects are just in our heads?

And the basis for science is observation rather then objectivity. After all, it is only through observation that you can reach objectivity. So I guess you can say objectivity is the goal, but not the means to reach it. Assuming by "objectivity" you mean "how the universe works" .

Problem with forums... no one likes to stay on topic .

You've never perceived anything in the first place. Not even yourself.

I grow tired of repeating what was already discussed. But here it goes again:

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science doesn't use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes their real (faith).

 

[bobhikes]

You've never perceived anything in the first place. Not even yourself.

I grow tired of repeating what was already discussed. But here it goes again:

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science doesn't use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes their real (faith).

First off I love the nothing exists theory its great for messing with people. However we deal with reality. If I drop a rock on my foot, it causes pain how many times do I have to drop it on my foot or other peoples feet before I can say I have proof that dropping a rock on your foot will cause pain without saying it is a faith based decision. Do I really need to drop it on everyone's foot in the world? If one person does not have pain receptors in his foot do I now have to discredit all my other tests or say it is faith based.

Just because I refuse to test everyone in the world does not mean I am using faith. If I refuse to accept a contrary result without testing it then I am using faith.

If you are saying Rocks don't exist so you can't test them. I would ask you what am I going to drop on your foot then. You need to give me something to test. Something is going to cause you pain.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

The attempt to insist that science requires faith is merely a reverse attempt to place science on par with faith itself as being equally valid. the inference being that if something as reliable and important as 'science' is actually a matter based simply on faith, then whatever religion the person positing this, has, it MUST be valid, because it possesses faith!

Do you have any direct questions or rebuttals? Perhaps a semantic dispute, or any logical inconsistency I'm not aware of?

 

[9Westy9]

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

Just like not stamp collecting is a hobby

 

[9Westy9]

The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational predicate is based on an assumption (objects exist). How do we even know objects exist if we don't perceive them but conceive them with our own minds? Stay on topic please.

I have a video regarding this in detail but don't have the post counts to link the video. Type "Faith is necessary for Science to function" on youtube to view it.

Objects are objective though (surprisingly ). As for objects exist it's not that large a 'leap of faith'

 

[mnemonicTonic]

First off I love the nothing exists theory its great for messing with people. However we deal with reality. If I drop a rock on my foot, it causes pain how many times do I have to drop it on my foot or other peoples feet before I can say I have proof that dropping a rock on your foot will cause pain without saying it is a faith based decision. Do I really need to drop it on everyone's foot in the world? If one person does not have pain receptors in his foot do I now have to discredit all my other tests or say it is faith based.

Just because I refuse to test everyone in the world does not mean I am using faith. If I refuse to accept a contrary result without testing it then I am using faith.

If you are saying Rocks don't exist so you can't test them. I would ask you what am I going to drop on your foot then. You need to give me something to test. Something is going to cause you pain.

You are missing the point. It is not an argument of conceiving the rock, but perceiving it. Whatever pain I feel when I drop the rock on my foot, my mind conceives it to be real. I'm not perceiving the act.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

I'm going to sleep, whatever is posted I'll reply when I'm rested.

 

[Willamena]

How would you essentially draw an inference from an observational experience if you're not perceiving it? I don't see how you can extrapolate real objects from imaginative objects.

"Objective" and "subjective" are relational concepts, not metaphysical. You're essentially asking how anything can be real. Are you really asking that?

 

[Viker]

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

Can't take you serious any longer.

 

[Willamena]

The OP is basically calling for arguments against "brains in a vat." So, what are the arguments against?

 

[PolyHedral]

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science doesn't use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes their real (faith).

Something is generating sensory input. It is assumed for simplicity's sake that this is external from our own minds, but you don't have to follow that assumption. However, without it, it's basically impossible to get any sort of conclusion.

The OP is basically calling for arguments against "brains in a vat." So, what are the arguments against?

Simplicity.

 

[Willamena]

Simplicity.

How much simpler can you get than eliminating half the world?

 

[bobhikes]

You are missing the point. It is not an argument of conceiving the rock, but perceiving it. Whatever pain I feel when I drop the rock on my foot, my mind conceives it to be real. I'm not perceiving the act.

I usually argue against science but in the spirit of the Holidays. I am supporting science.

Perceive, Conceive do not matter to science other than as a question?

Test and test results are the backbone of science.

Sticking with the rock.
A scientist will use a rock of a certain mass(probably not even a rock) drop it from a certain height and expect a certain force. The scientist will take into effect gravity, wind speed, air mass ...etc. The scientist will test it at various places with various differences monitoring each. The scientist results are then open to testing by all others and if results are shown to be contrary the science is declared bad.

For this to be faith the Scientist must ignore results that don't agree with his perception or conception or he did not tested properly and refuse to test in the future or the Scientific community must decide that this is unrefutable.

As long as it is tested and open to future testing it is not a matter of faith. Faith is not open to testing.

It matters not if it is a rock, a conception or a perception, what matters is that whatever you think it is it will preform exactly as you think it should. This is very important especially when dropping a rock you know not to drop it on someones head.

 

[PolyHedral]

How much simpler can you get than eliminating half the world?

A brain that can generate the results of all of reality is far, far more complex than just the universe.

 

[Kerr]

You've never perceived anything in the first place. Not even yourself.

I grow tired of repeating what was already discussed. But here it goes again:

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science doesn't use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes their real (faith).

Are you saying thinking that something is real is a matter of faith?

 

[YmirGF]

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

For the 12,234,353rd time, atheism is NOT a freaking religion and it doesn't matter how many times people say it is, that does not change reality. In regards to the OP, science is about verifiable inquiry not about faith. Perhaps it is a small bit of "faith in hunches or theory" but that is not the same kind of vapid faith found in religion.

 

[Willamena]

Something is generating sensory input. It is assumed for simplicity's sake that this is external from our own minds, but you don't have to follow that assumption. However, without it, it's basically impossible to get any sort of conclusion.

But why isn't it possible to get precisely the same conclusion? Edit: The premise of "brains in a vat" as a thought exercise is that it is not possible to distinguish the world that is objectively real from the world that is thought or presumed to be objectively real. The world would work the same way regardless of which model is accurate.

 

[bobhikes]

For the 12,234,353rd time, atheism is NOT a freaking religion and it doesn't matter how many times people say it is, that does not change reality. In regards to the OP, science is about verifiable inquiry not about faith. Perhaps it is a small bit of "faith in hunches or theory" but that is not the same kind of vapid faith found in religion.

For the ?????????? time it depends on your definition of religion and belief. Of course your definition is the only one that matters.