(October 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: If the definition of 'believe' you are using is 'the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true', then yes, by that definition scientists believe they exist. If you are using 'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof' as your definition, then no, they don't believe they exist.

I didn't define faith or belief as "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

Even using your definition, you have to admit scientists have confidence in things "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - that is, the scientific method itself. What proves the scientific method produces real knowledge? Answer: your faith that it does.

You have faith in an epistemological method, just as a religious person does. Your epistemological method doesn't prove itself. You believe in it, and so it works for you.

Science studies from the middle of the process; they do not study the origin. We must know the beginning. If you suddenly see a plane fly into the horizon, will you say it came from the sea or the sky? But the scientific explanations are similar. They say "This existed, and then all of a sudden, by chance, that occurred." But what about explaining the original cause?

(October 17, 2012 at 2:56 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

(October 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: If the definition of 'believe' you are using is 'the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true', then yes, by that definition scientists believe they exist. If you are using 'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof' as your definition, then no, they don't believe they exist.

I didn't define faith or belief as "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

Even using your definition, you have to admit scientists have confidence in things "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - that is, the scientific method itself. What proves the scientific method produces real knowledge? Answer: your faith that it does.

I don't have to admit any such thing. Wait back up; something of a gish gallop happening here. What is YOUR definition of belief?
What things do scientists have confidence in that are "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - name a few.
What is your understanding of the scientific method?

(October 17, 2012 at 2:56 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: You have faith in an epistemological method, just as a religious person does. Your epistemological method doesn't prove itself. You believe in it, and so it works for you.

I don't know if this was aimed squarely at Simon, but if it wasn't and was aimed instead at the realm of rational thinking - it is rubbish. In so many ways.

(October 17, 2012 at 2:56 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Science studies from the middle of the process; they do not study the origin. We must know the beginning. If you suddenly see a plane fly into the horizon, will you say it came from the sea or the sky? But the scientific explanations are similar. They say "This existed, and then all of a sudden, by chance, that occurred." But what about explaining the original cause?

Absolute cock. Science studies from the middle of the process? Is that what you think happened to come up with germ theory? have you ever heard of first principles? I think perhaps you should rethink your understanding of how science works.

(October 17, 2012 at 3:49 am)Brunitski Wrote: What things do scientists have confidence in that are "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - name a few.

The scientific method itself. You can't prove that science produces knowledge by the method of the scientific method itself - that would result in circular reasoning.

How do you prove that the human attempt at knowledge can produce anything really true? And further, how do you know it can produce true knowledge about the origin of life and the universe?

So many people have no fucking idea how science "works", it's restrictions and demands just leave their minds in a gelatinous state.

I have no idea why people would want to know the "original cause" but for the record it was a Eukaryote.

There now aki-ramarama ding dong....happy now??

Which "original - cause" to which disease are we talking about?? ....Just curious.

The scientific method is all about testing to see if ideas are valid or not.

Nothing else essentially.

Why should that be a problem?

It is the scientific method that gave you the computer you are sitting in front of right now.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:18 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: The scientific method itself. You can't prove that science produces knowledge by the method of the scientific method itself - that would result in circular reasoning.

How do you prove that the human attempt at knowledge can produce anything really true? And further, how do you know it can produce true knowledge about the origin of life and the universe?

Uhh..it works! Why do some theists say "well how do you know the scientific method produces actual knowledge?" Because it does. How do you think we advanced this far technologically with a clearly flawed method? So how about we compare the number of provable discoveries found via the scientific method, and the number found via 'revelation'?

(October 11, 2012 at 8:42 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Is it that God doesn't help them understand anything that they're perceiving?

You hit the nail on the head.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:18 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 3:49 am)Brunitski Wrote: What things do scientists have confidence in that are "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" - name a few.

The scientific method itself. You can't prove that science produces knowledge by the method of the scientific method itself - that would result in circular reasoning.

How do you prove that the human attempt at knowledge can produce anything really true? And further, how do you know it can produce true knowledge about the origin of life and the universe?

Firstly, thanks for answering; I do think however, that you need to address the other questions I asked, specifically, what is your understanding of the scientific method.
Secondly, in the first iteration of this question you asked "What proves the scientific method produces real knowledge? Answer: your faith that it does."
in the next iteration, you are asking for "truth".

Point the first.

There are no "things" (plural) which "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof", there is only one and that is a Meta linguistic or possibly philosophical issue. Fine; that the scientific method cannot be used to investigate the scientific method is a topic that could chew up some of our time, but it is not a topic that concerns science. Or me to be frank.

Point the second.

Science doesn't do "TRUTHtm"
Science does Hypothesis, evidence, investigation, self checking, confirmation, and more evidence.

Point the third

How do we know that the scientific method produces "real" knowledge? We use our experience, our powers of observation, our rationality and our understanding of others to inform us that we are living longer, healthier, more productive, more sustainable and safer lives than ever before - and in that I include even those whose standards of living are so far below yours and mine as to be laughable, whose lives are nonetheless measurably better today than they were 100 years ago.
That and the fact that you are asking these questions on a frikken 'puter that would not be possible if there was a flaw in this argument.

Yeah, the issue is that the scientific method is not a philosophy. It's not meant to be something you believe in. It's not the "answer." It's just a way of getting to answers that has been conveniently codified. It's a tool for solving problems that has been tested by time. We don't ask people to believe on faith that hammers do their job of hammering nails, so we don't worry too much about the scientific method doing its job of figuring out stuff.

The really funny thing (funny=peculiar or funny=ha ha, take yer pick) is that many religious literalists tend not to have a problem with science on matters like electricity, gravity, medicine etc. It's only when science is at odds with what they consider to be the purview of their favourite holy book that's when the problems start.