Is provability required for belief?

[Audie]

Yes. I have in mind for the word "proof" the kind of high likelihood of evidence such as that of accepted theories and laws of science. Proofs exist in philosophy, but science uses epistemological arguments in coming to conclusions.

And you can certainly disprove a scientific hypothesis, so it seems proof and disproof are relevant considerations.

It seems to me it's reasonable to say that it's proven that E = MC^2 or F = MA within the proper domain. New discoveries that disprove these will be outside that domain. Thus, F = MA is still true in the classical domain.

Partial definition of "proof" via Merriam Webster online dictionary:

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
1 b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning​

Seems my use of the word "proof" matches with the dictionary just fine.

When talking about science, avoid using the word.

 

[Audie]

No one has actually proved that mutations are random; this, because no one has proved that quantum mechanics randomness is actually random. It's possible that an intelligent designer chooses the outcome in a manner that looks random.

It is not profound to say that science has not proved
something, since it has never proved anything.

If it entertains you to roam realms of fantasy, that is fine.
It does not entertain me.

IF though, you wish to do due respect to your
"creator" why assume it didnt know how to set
up a universe that can run itself, without constant
tinkering like it was an old British sports car?

For that matter, maybe it is a big prank for his
own cosmic gag reel, but if the human body was
actually designed, it is a crappy joke to do it that
way.

 

[Audie]

Couldnt it be that randomness is built into nature intelligently?

Perhaps there are specific patterns of randomness. Or a random order to things.

Sounds a bit contradictory, but a god can do
as it likes.
Ifn there is one
To me, adding that in immensely complicates
matters, without any actual reason to inject
that complexity, and it sure does not help
understanding.

 

[bobhikes]

There is strong empirical evidence that money has actual value. When I give some to someone, they let me take stuff home. If this stopped being true, I would stop believing in the the truth that money has value.

Give you money to an Amazon tribe see how far you get. Try to use you money in another country without exchanging it, you'll find it hard. If you do exchange it they will take some of it away. There are actually stores in the US now that refuse money only taking electronic payments. Sweden has stopped using money.

 

[bobhikes]

Certainly their scientific investigations were not advanced such as our modern science is. But they learned to use fire, and make tools, and kill and eat large animals, and collect berries and roots, and domesticate dogs. Sure, they also invented gods and buried stuff along with their dead.

My argument is that cavemen relied heavily on belief, not and scientific fact. They view coincidences as theory. The took mythology as accuracy. They pray to gods to accomplish daily tasks and made sacrifice's to appease these gods. All of that led eventually to science but was just belief based on observation. According to the post I originally quoted Belief is just fantasy. I all the early humans just worked off of fantasy we would not be here today with science. They worked off of belief which is not science but just their observation, experiences, and theories. There testing and verification was that they were still alive and thriving.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thank you for your honesty. I would guess that anything you believe is due to philosophical reflection or philosophical analysis.

Nope. But I try to behave that way as much as possible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sweden has stopped using money.

Yep...not completely, but vast majority of shops in Sweden look at you askance if you try paying cash for anything.

 

[Left Coast]

Perhaps by limiting the question to things that could be true, the assumption is they actually are true? For example, an apple can not be an orange. By discarding all things that can't be true, aren't we left with only things which are true?

No, if we eliminate what can't be true, we're left with what can be true. All things that can be true aren't necessarily actually true, though.

 

[Left Coast]

In my view, the subjective experience of consciousness and its contents resides in the spiritual realm.

To be clear, what does "the spiritual realm" mean to you, and how did you determine that consciousness resides there?

My objection to materialism/physicalism is: that it is merely an assumption. No one can prove it. And the existence of the subjective experience of consciousness appears to disprove it.

How does the subjective experience of consciousness disprove it?

I don't adhere to philosophical naturalism myself because I don't know how you can definitively demonstrate it. So I'm agnostic as to whether there's a supernatural realm. My issue is that if there is a supernatural realm, I have no idea how we would go about gaining any information about it. The only verifiable information we can collect about the world outside our heads is empirical/natural.

 

[Neutral Name]

In my view, consciousness and the mind do control the body, specifically when issuing free will commands to the brain resulting in flexing muscles or releasing hormones and etc.

First, I just noticed your religion "Religion:deist monotheist agnostic panentheist". I love it. You are after my own heart.
Second, I'm not sure that our consciousness and mind control everything in our bodies. They can control some but some things are outside influences like diseases. We have little control over them.

 

[Neutral Name]

In my view, I assume scientific truth is correct. Only because I observe things outside the domain of science do I postulate a spiritual realm containing these things.

Very cool! So do I.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

This is way to black and white for me.
Reality is a lot a more nuanced then that.

"Provability" is to strong. Try "supportability". Not everything can be "proven".
Belief is also quite strong, as it expresses a form of certainty that I'm not necessarily comfortable with.

Try "considering things in various gradations of likelyness".
Probability, plausibility, etc.

When I'm 99% sure, I'ld probably use the word "believe", but I wouldn't be meaning the strict black or white use of the word where i consder the thing as being "true". Instead, it's just "highly likely".

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

That would be an expectation, again without expressing certainty. Yes, you could use the word "believe", but again you wouldn't be talking about the black or white use of the word.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

This is a misrepresentation, or likely a misunderstanding, of how multi-verse ideas found their way into a scientific narrative.

It's not like that's some independend idea that some scientist came up with in his head.
The multi-verse rather is a prediction from theories that DO deal with the physical universe. Like Inflation Theory, which attempts to explain the initial expansion phase of the big bang. The multi-verse is a prediction that naturally flows from that model. Very simplisticly put, working out the math of the model ends up in math describing a multi-verse.

So really, if there is anyting being believed, then it is the theory that predicts it. If the theory is correct and accurate, then the predictions necessarily follow. It's like an argument. If the premises are correct and the logic is valid and sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

Off course, theories in science are never "believed", merely tentatively accepted. With various degrees of confidence (or "likelyness" or "plausibility" or "probability" or... anything but certainty).

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain.

Huh?
Sounds like an argument from ignorance.

After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Seems to me that consiouscness is what we call the experience of awareness, emergent from a physical brain. And thus fundamentally physical in nature.

That the process isn't fully explained neurologically to people's satisfaction (yet?) doesn't change that observation.