Science Babble vs Truth

[Nimos]

I think it's because some people do not understand what faith is, as described in the Bible, as opposed to "faith" some "Christians" and other unbelievers talk about.

Well in that case, it was not wrong to assume that we understood the word differently.

So what kind of "faith" are you talking about and how is that different from the normal understanding of what faith is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A quick side note. I have started a thread where I have a quote mine challenge. Basically I will directly quote the Bible. and abuse a verse by taking it out of context. The challenge is to find the verse. I will need a volunteer that agrees to hold the verse for me so that I cannot cheat. The only reward will be in knowing that my quote mine was beaten. But it will illustrate how hard it can be to trace down a source when someone quotes out of context.

And it is open to everyone, not just Christians. Well everyone except for the one person that agrees to hold the quote. That would be a bit self defeating on my part.

 

[nPeace]

I want to address this some more, because it is at the heart of the issue, I think.

If *all* I did was claim there was a 'force' that makes the planets go in their orbits, that would be just like postulating angles.

But that is NOT what happens.

Newton, for example, gave a very precise mathematical description of the force between two masses

F=GMm/r^2

So, the force is proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely propertional to the square of the distance between them.

That, in combination with the law of motion F=ma, allows for the computation of where the planets will be into the future based on what masses there are around them (the sun, other planets, etc).

This is what makes it testable: if the mathematics predicts that the planet will be in a specific location, we can look there and see whether or not the planet is really there. if it is not, then something is wrong. We might have neglected some mass, for example, or the equation F=ma might be wrong. Or the force law for gravity F=GMm/r^2 might be wrong. But we can test our ideas because the theory itself makes incredibly specific predictions about what will happen and when.

This is what it takes to be testable.

Furthermore, we don't just test this system of ideas on just one planet. It applies to ALL of them. And to all star systems. It applies to things orbiting the Earth or Mars, or Jupiter. ALL of those systems are tests to see if the theory works or not. Also, F=ma applies to ALL cases of forces, not just gravity, but electromagnetism, friction, etc. Again, the variety of cases allows us to test the ideas to see when and if they fail.

This is what gives us confidence in the theory. When it passes ALL the tests, even in cases we would be surprised by, then we get confidence in our description.

But, what if we find a case where it fails? it is *always* possible that this can happen.

So here are two actual, historical cases.

In the first, the planet Uranus was found to NOT be where the theory of gravity predicted it to be. Some people suggested that the law of gravity was imply wrong that far away from the sun. Others proposed that we had missed a planet. These people used the math of the theory of gravity to say that an extra planet would explain why Uranus wasn't where it was expected. Furthermore, they were able to use that math to say where the *new* planet would be found. When people looked, they discovered the planet Neptune.

Now, think about this. The theory of gravity had done pretty well describing the motion of things up to that point, but it was getting the position of Uranus wrong. But, using that theory, it was proposed that there was *another*, undiscovered planet out there and that new planet was actually found.

That makes for some pretty substantial confidence in the theory, doesn't it?

In the second, the motion of the planet Mercury was similarly found to not be quite what was predicted. It was off by about 1/80th of a degree in its orbit over the course of a century. now, I want you to think about that. We are talking about enough precision that a test for our ideas amounted to a very, very small angle over the course of a century in an orbit.

Once again, people proposed that a new planet could be responsible (not unreasonable given what happened with Uranus and Neptune). But no such planet was ever found.

Instead, Einstein realized that he could adjust the 'force law' very slightly and explain the discrepancies in the motion of Mercury. This lead to his theory of General Relativity.

Now, were Newton's ideas thrown out entirely? No. Why not? because they worked well enough for the vast majority of situations. In fact, they are used today to guide probes to Mars and other planets. They are that good.

But, in some situations, and to high degrees of precision, Newton's laws don't work. In those cases, Einstein's laws are used instead. In the case where Newton's ideas are 'good enough', Einstein's agree to that level of precision. At this point, we don't know of any case where Einstein's laws are violated.

So, in reference to our discussion, are Newton's laws 'unreliable'? Are Einstein's laws 'reliable'? is it possible Einstein's description will be found wrong and a new theory will have to replace it? Absolutely, it is possible.

But we can still have an incredible level of confidence in them. They have been tested in all sorts of situations, from black holes, to neutron stars, to the sun, to gravity on the Earth. At this point,we don't know of *any* violations of them.

So, I ask you, how much confidence should we have in Einstein's description? In Newton's?

I can give you many other cases where the laws scientists have discovered have as much support and should be trusted at least as much.

What's at the heart of the issue? Angels... and if we can measure them? No.
That's like the scientist that thinks the only way to test anything is to bring them into a lab, and put them under a microscope.

Every piece of evidence does not go into the lab under a microscope.
They are analyze in various ways, and at times may use the methods all scientists use.

1) Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward".

2) Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

The inductive approach is also used, right.​

However, science does not touch all areas of inquiry or knowledge.
Your focus on angels would be against your field of study, because the modern scientific approach has removed any possibility or probability of God or angels, remember Or at least they don't deal with such things.
So any talk of hypotheses regarding angels is not in your books.

Hypothesis
A scientific hypothesis
is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.
must be experimentally testable
cannot be proven to be true

Your world is not the only means of acquiring knowledge.

Both scientists and engineers contribute to the world of human knowledge, but in different ways.
Religion does also. Methods differ. However, they all lead to knowledge, and do not even have to conflict.
However, they might, based on how one views one, or the other.
There are of course, different sciences as well.

No one here... except you, have made any mention of angels affecting planets.
Your question was... How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

That's what we will stick with. Let's not desperately try to create scenarios that we feel we can shoot down, and make life easy for ourselves.

Remember too, you are having this conversation with me, so bringing in what other people believe or say, is not relevant is it.
Some people, many in fact, including those who call themselves Christians, don't even know why they believe in God. You are free to ask them why they do.
I asked, but they refused to answer... for obvious reasons, imo.

Anyway, let's get on with it.
There is evidence God is, and this evidence is reliable.
I'll start with one source of truth - the Bible.
Let's also take it nice and slow, bit by bit, so nobody gets lost, or rambles, and I don't have to repeat myself.

The Bible is accurate about history.
The Bible book of Joshua, was written centuries before our modern time.
It reported details about the city of Jericho.
Details which could only be known if that information was available at the time of writing.

Archaeological discoveries confirm that the city of Jericho was not destroyed after a long seige, but quickly, and based on the evidence they conclude that the walls fell down, and the city was burned.

Tthe evidence does not contradict the Biblical account, but supports it. Giving evidence of the reliability of the recorded account.
This is not a one off situation, but has occured numerous times.

The Bible is accurate about science.
The writer of the Bible book of Job, was writen centuries before modern discoveries regarding knowledge of our solar system.
Job 26:7 states a fact that could not be known by man, unless 2 Timothy 3:16 were true.

Only recently, has the fact the earth is not supported by anything been discovered and confirmed - contrary to what was believed previously by many.

This is again, just one of many occurances.
There is by far, a lot more evidence, but this is just the beginning.
There is evidence we have a reliable souce of truth, and knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's at the heart of the issue? Angels... and if we can easure them? No.
That's like the scientist that thinks the only way to test anything is to bring them into a lab, and put them under a microscope.

Every piece of evidence does not go into the lab under a microscope.
They are analyze in various ways, and at times may use the methods all scientists use.

1) Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward".

2) Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

The inductive approach is also used, right.​

However, science does not touch all areas of inquiry or knowledge.
Your focus on angels would be against your field of study, because the modern scientific approach has removed any possibility or probability of God or angels, remember Or at least they don't deal with such things.
So any talk of hypotheses regarding angels is not in your books.

Hypothesis
A scientific hypothesis
is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.
must be experimentally testable
cannot be proven to be true

Your world is not the only means of acquiring knowledge.

Both scientists and engineers contribute to the world of human knowledge, but in different ways.
Religion does also. Methods differ. However, they all lead to knowledge, and do not even have to conflict.
However, they might, based on how one views one, or the other.
There are of course, different sciences as well.

No one here... except you, have made any mention of angels affecting planets.
Your question was... How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

That's what we will stick with. Let's not desperately try to create scenarios that we feel we can shoot down, and make life easy for ourselves.

Remember too, you are having this conversation with me, so bringing in what other people believe or say, is not relevant is it.
Some people, many in fact, including those who call themselves Christians, don't even know why they believe in God. You are free to ask them why they do.
I asked, but they refused to answer... for obvious reasons, imo.

Anyway, let's get on with it.
There is evidence God is, and this evidence is reliable.
I'll start with one source of truth - the Bible.
Let's also take it nice and slow, bit by bit, so nobody gets lost, or rambles, and I don't have to repeat myself.

The Bible is accurate about history.
The Bible book of Joshua, was written centuries before our modern time.
It reported details about the city of Jericho.
Details which could only be known if that information was available at the time of writing.

Archaeological discoveries confirm that the city of Jericho was not destroyed after a long seige, but quickly, and based on the evidence they conclude that the walls fell down, and the city was burned.

Tthe evidence does not contradict the Biblical account, but supports it. Giving evidence of the reliability of the recorded account.
This is not a one off situation, but has occured numerous times.

The Bible is accurate about science.
The writer of the Bible book of Job, was writen centuries before modern discoveries regarding knowledge of our solar system.
Job 26:7 states a fact that could not be known by man, unless 2 Timothy 3:16 were true.

Only recently, has the fact the earth is not supported by anything been discovered and confirmed - contrary to what was believed previously by many.

This is again, just one of many occurances.
There is by far, a lot more evidence, but this is just the beginning.
There is evidence we have a reliable souce of truth, and knowledge.

Sorry , but when read in context the Bible only describes the Earth as Flat. Abusing Job is done by reinterpreting it after the fact.

 

[nPeace]

What test do you propose?

What test do you suggest for ETs?

Well, I was talking about gravity.

Oh. Why?

Dark energy is essentially the same as a cosmological constant, which was part of Einstein's original equations for General Relativity.

Dark matter has been tested in a number of ways and yes, it affects things as predicted. We still don't know exactly what it is, so the predictions are limited.

When was it predicted, and what was predicted about it?

The angels, of course. I am trying to show that certain forms of circular reasoning common among religious people arguing for a God are not valid. In particular, a circular argument (claiming angels push planets, so planets moving is evidence for angels) is a very common way that religious people argue for their positions.

All you are doing is confusing me.
You said... They claim that the evidence of angels is seen by the fact that planets orbit the sun. Since angels are what push the planets, that is evidence, right?
....and 'They' refers to the angels?

 

[nPeace]

Like I pointed out, others have explained what the *actual* context is for the quote. And the result of that is showing that the quote is actually a quote mine, taking things out of context.

Are you wanting a source showing that this is a common creationist tactic? I can give a number of creationist books and articles that quote people as saying *precisely* the opposite of what they were actually saying.

I gave a definition of quote mining. You can also look up what it means: it is a standard tactic.

I don't believe you are following this conversation. There is no coherency in your responses. They are all over the place.
You certainly are not responding to particular things I say.

You gave no source for your definition of evidence. You have not shown that I took any quote out of context, and you have not defined reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you are following this conversation. There is no coherency in your responses. They are all over the place.
You certainly are not responding to particular things I say.

You gave no source for your definition of evidence. You have not shown that I took any quote out of context, and you have not defined reliable.

Oh my! So backwards.

 

[nPeace]

Well in that case, it was not wrong to assume that we understood the word differently.

So what kind of "faith" are you talking about and how is that different from the normal understanding of what faith is?

I explained.
What's with these Atheists!!! I'm speaking Dutch?

Oh wait. I get it. They don't know what to say, so they are trying to confuse or distract me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I explained.
What's with these Atheists!!! I'm speaking Dutch?

Oh wait. I get it. They don't know what to say, so they are trying to confuse or distract me.

If you did you probably convinced only yourself. That is the time to begin to question one/s work.

 

[viole]

Looks stupid but works... you mean?

Yes. No sensible human engineer would design things so stupidly. And that is why the ID movement is actually addressing SD.

That would mean the beholder is just ignorant, of the purpose, because they are looking at the object to have particular features for the purpose of entertaining them... missing the purpose of the design.

Well, that is the problem. If you design a nervous connection connecting two points separated by, say two centimetres, and you do it with a cable running several meters along the body, then you would be expelled immediately from the school of aspiring creators of the universe.

Some look at entropy and complain about the design too.
For example, someone may look at a rusty car, and ask the question, why did the designer make this stupid object... without giving consideration to the fact of cause and effect. The effect has a cause yes, but the designer is not the cause.

Well, the problem is that those stupid design happens when the car is very new. From the start, I would say. If you were a biologist studying animals morphology (including us), you would see plenty of them.

So if you give some examples, I might be able to show you that what you at focusing on, is the end product or result of interference with the design. Rather than it being the original design.

Try me.

Males with nipples? The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes? Human tails? etc.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

I explained.
What's with these Atheists!!! I'm speaking Dutch?

Oh wait. I get it. They don't know what to say, so they are trying to confuse or distract me.

You didn't explain it, which is why I asked. This is what you wrote as explanation:

You are speaking about the kind of faith, some confuse with real faith. Faith is not blind or gullible. That kind of "blind faith", is different to what I am talking about.

I think it's because some people do not understand what faith is, as described in the Bible, as opposed to "faith" some "Christians" and other unbelievers talk about.

These are not explanations, it is merely statements filled with assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

What's at the heart of the issue? Angels... and if we can measure them? No.
That's like the scientist that thinks the only way to test anything is to bring them into a lab, and put them under a microscope.

Not true. There is also field work (going out to find fossils, for example) and the use of telescopes and other devices.

Every piece of evidence does not go into the lab under a microscope.

Every piece of evidence should be checked for reliability and tested to see how it relates to all the rest of the evidence. It should be scrutinized (figuratively put under a microscope).

They are analyze in various ways, and at times may use the methods all scientists use.

1) Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward".

2) Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

The inductive approach is also used, right.​

All of these methods are useful, but unreliable in and of themselves. Deductive reasoning, for example, lead Aristotle to think that heavy things fall faster than light things. He was wrong about that (his deduction failed). And simple observation shows that he was wrong.

THAT is why we need to test via actual observations.

However, science does not touch all areas of inquiry or knowledge.

I never claimed otherwise. Science says nothing about ethics or aesthetics. I does not judge right or wrong not does it say what is beautiful or not. Those are important questions, just not scientific ones.

Your focus on angels would be against your field of study, because the modern scientific approach has removed any possibility or probability of God or angels, remember Or at least they don't deal with such things.

You miss the point. Angels are not considered because they cannot be tested. When and if a theory is proposed that allows them to be tested, science can deal with them.

So any talk of hypotheses regarding angels is not in your books.

Hypothesis
A scientific hypothesis
is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.
must be experimentally testable
cannot be proven to be true

Your world is not the only means of acquiring knowledge.

I never said otherwise. But any branch of knowledge has to have some method of resolving differences of opinion. There has to be, at the least, a method to say who is wrong.

Both scientists and engineers contribute to the world of human knowledge, but in different ways.
Religion does also. Methods differ. However, they all lead to knowledge, and do not even have to conflict.
However, they might, based on how one views one, or the other.
There are of course, different sciences as well.

Give one piece of knowledge contributed by religion that is not given by science.

No one here... except you, have made any mention of angels affecting planets.

Everyone else seems to have gotten the point: any hypothesis needs to be testable.

Your question was... How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

That's what we will stick with. Let's not desperately try to create scenarios that we feel we can shoot down, and make life easy for ourselves.

Remember too, you are having this conversation with me, so bringing in what other people believe or say, is not relevant is it.
Some people, many in fact, including those who call themselves Christians, don't even know why they believe in God. You are free to ask them why they do.
I asked, but they refused to answer... for obvious reasons, imo.

Anyway, let's get on with it.
There is evidence God is, and this evidence is reliable.
I'll start with one source of truth - the Bible.
Let's also take it nice and slow, bit by bit, so nobody gets lost, or rambles, and I don't have to repeat myself.

The Bible is accurate about history.
The Bible book of Joshua, was written centuries before our modern time.
It reported details about the city of Jericho.
Details which could only be known if that information was available at the time of writing.

Archaeological discoveries confirm that the city of Jericho was not destroyed after a long seige, but quickly, and based on the evidence they conclude that the walls fell down, and the city was burned.

Tthe evidence does not contradict the Biblical account, but supports it. Giving evidence of the reliability of the recorded account.
This is not a one off situation, but has occured numerous times.

OK. But having certain historical details right doens't make the book reliable about other aspects of the story. For example, the fact that New York exists doesn't prove the existence of Batman.

But let's take another example. The Iliad is an ancient story from Greece about the fall of a city called Troy. For a long time, scholars thought that Troy was a myth. They dismissed the story as legend and unreliable. But then an archeologist went to what is now Turkey and found the remains of Troy. And they were as described in the Iliad.

Does this make the Iliad reliable? Other parts of the Iliad describe the Greek Gods (zeus, Athena, etc) discussing what to do: how to get the Greeks to wage war against Troy and how to foment its downfall.

Does the fact that Troy exist mean that the Iliad is reliable in its description of the Greek Gods?

I think you would agree that it does not. Simply having some historical accuracy does not give reliability about Gods.

The Bible is accurate about science.
The writer of the Bible book of Job, was writen centuries before modern discoveries regarding knowledge of our solar system.
Job 26:7 states a fact that could not be known by man, unless 2 Timothy 3:16 were true.

1. When was Job written? Much later than other books.
2. What does it actually say? That the Earth hangs on nothingness.
3. Is this reliable? NO. The Earth does NOT hang! It moves. This is the old, old view that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and is motionless.

Sorry, but your example shows the Bible to NOT be reliable in science.

Only recently, has the fact the earth is not supported by anything been discovered and confirmed -

Since this was well known by about 400BC, I would hardly call this recent.

contrary to what was believed previously by many.

This is again, just one of many occurances.
There is by far, a lot more evidence, but this is just the beginning.
There is evidence we have a reliable souce of truth, and knowledge.

Your own example shows otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't believe you are following this conversation. There is no coherency in your responses. They are all over the place.
You certainly are not responding to particular things I say.

Then read a bit closer. I am dealing with what you had said and showing why it doesn't work. I am also giving alternatives that do work.

You gave no source for your definition of evidence. You have not shown that I took any quote out of context, and you have not defined reliable.

I do not need to 'give a source' for the definition of evidence. I pointed out what is required and why.

 

[Polymath257]

I explained.
What's with these Atheists!!! I'm speaking Dutch?

Oh wait. I get it. They don't know what to say, so they are trying to confuse or distract me.

Not at all. Please give what you consider to be the correct definition of 'faith'. Show how it differs from what the 'standard' usage is. Then we can discuss the version *you* selected and see how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. There is also field work (going out to find fossils, for example) and the use of telescopes and other devices.



Every piece of evidence should be checked for reliability and tested to see how it relates to all the rest of the evidence. It should be scrutinized (figuratively put under a microscope).



All of these methods are useful, but unreliable in and of themselves. Deductive reasoning, for example, lead Aristotle to think that heavy things fall faster than light things. He was wrong about that (his deduction failed). And simple observation shows that he was wrong.

THAT is why we need to test via actual observations.


I never claimed otherwise. Science says nothing about ethics or aesthetics. I does not judge right or wrong not does it say what is beautiful or not. Those are important questions, just not scientific ones.



You miss the point. Angels are not considered because they cannot be tested. When and if a theory is proposed that allows them to be tested, science can deal with them.



I never said otherwise. But any branch of knowledge has to have some method of resolving differences of opinion. There has to be, at the least, a method to say who is wrong.



Give one piece of knowledge contributed by religion that is not given by science.


Everyone else seems to have gotten the point: any hypothesis needs to be testable.



OK. But having certain historical details right doens't make the book reliable about other aspects of the story. For example, the fact that New York exists doesn't prove the existence of Batman.

But let's take another example. The Iliad is an ancient story from Greece about the fall of a city called Troy. For a long time, scholars thought that Troy was a myth. They dismissed the story as legend and unreliable. But then an archeologist went to what is now Turkey and found the remains of Troy. And they were as described in the Iliad.

Does this make the Iliad reliable? Other parts of the Iliad describe the Greek Gods (zeus, Athena, etc) discussing what to do: how to get the Greeks to wage war against Troy and how to foment its downfall.

Does the fact that Troy exist mean that the Iliad is reliable in its description of the Greek Gods?

I think you would agree that it does not. Simply having some historical accuracy does not give reliability about Gods.



1. When was Job written? Much later than other books.
2. What does it actually say? That the Earth hangs on nothingness.
3. Is this reliable? NO. The Earth does NOT hang! It moves. This is the old, old view that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and is motionless.

Sorry, but your example shows the Bible to NOT be reliable in science.




Since this was well known by about 400BC, I would hardly call this recent.



Your own example shows otherwise.

I am shocked at the extreme ignorance in this post! Batman lives in Gotham City. Perhaps you meant Spiderman. How embarrassing

 

[tas8831]

Give one piece of knowledge contributed by religion that is not given by science.

I would settle for one knowledge-related thing that religion has actually contributed.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. No sensible human engineer would design things so stupidly. And that is why the ID movement is actually addressing SD.


Well, that is the problem. If you design a nervous connection connecting two points separated by, say two centimetres, and you do it with a cable running several meters along the body, then you would be expelled immediately from the school of aspiring creators of the universe.


Well, the problem is that those stupid design happens when the car is very new. From the start, I would say. If you were a biologist studying animals morphology (including us), you would see plenty of them.


Males with nipples? The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes? Human tails? etc.


Ciao

- viole

I'll get back to you shortly. After I shake some dust off my feet.
@Nimos just give me a few minutes. I want to get rid of some unnecessary posting, which would allow me time less wasted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No sources. No explanation for your attack. No definition. This post says nothing, and does not contribute to the discussion in any way. Moving on.

It is not an attack and it is disingenuous to define it as such in my opinion. Recognizing that there are many creationist sources that purposefully utilize logical fallacies and quote mining helps others more fully understand creationist methodologies.

 

[KWED]

Feduccia is just salty because palaeontologists generally find his hypotheses to be weak.

This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

Oh dear.

What's the point?
Both Garstang and Kenyon conducted significant excavations at Jericho. Both were excellent field archaeologists Garstang meticulously analyzed the pottery he excavated and Kenyon carefully improved excavation methodology in general. Yet both differed on their interpretation of the data.

Dating events in the ancient world is not an "exact science", so not sure what your point is.

 

[KWED]

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

Speaking as a scientist, my research has never required I make any assumptions about an intelligent first cause.
Ironically, it is only the religionist who is required to make assumptions about the existence of such a thing, and base all their subsequent belief on that assumption, ignoring anything that might shake that foundation.