(February 5, 2010 at 11:36 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

Quote: I don't think believing that the sun will come up tomorrow is a faith based position, since you have good reason to believe so, same with having a job next month.

I don't consider previous experience valid evidence for future events. It cannot foresee the future.

There is no valid reason to assume that the Earth will keep rotating so you will see the Sun again. Is is a matter of faith. No matter how many good reasons you have of believing that you are correct does not make it any less of an assumption. Just because we know the Earth has always done it, is not a guarantee that it will continue to rotate.

Is the Earth likely to continue? Yes. Is it certain to continue? No. Do we therefore assume that the Earth stops rotating? No. We assume that it does continue, we have to accept on faith that it doesn't stop.

Faith ≠ Assumption

No one has been alive long enough to witness the Sun and solar system make a full orbit round the Milky Way core, but we have the math, and therefore we can work out how long it will take.

Will the Earth contine to rotate exactly as before? No. Lunar tidal drag slows the Earth's rotation by about 0.002 seconds per day per century. Using Cassini's Laws and conservation of angular momentum, we can determine the rotation of Earth is slowing so a day gains 17 microseconds each year (if those are calculations are correct the day will become 1 second longer in 60,000 years... and one minute longer in another four million years, its all very exciting I'm sure).

Left to their own devices, tidal acceleration means the Earth and Moon will achieve a spin–orbit resonance in about 50 billion years, however in another projected 5 billion years our main sequence star* will have consumed much of its helium and become a red giant. With an estimated size increase from 0.01 astronomical unit to 2, the fate of Earth is unclear but using the Roche limit to work out the effects on tidal forces on the planet, its highly likely to be destroyed along with Mercury and Venus in the sun's outer layers.

As far as I'm concerned, faith finds itself out the window, in the gutter where it belongs.

*according to the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.

(February 6, 2010 at 9:43 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Faith ≠ Assumption

No one has been alive long enough to witness the Sun and solar system make a full orbit round the Milky Way core, but we have the math, and therefore we can work out how long it will take.

Will the Earth contine to rotate exactly as before? No. Lunar tidal drag slows the Earth's rotation by about 0.002 seconds per day per century. Using Cassini's Laws and conservation of angular momentum, we can determine the rotation of Earth is slowing so a day gains 17 microseconds each year (if those are calculations are correct the day will become 1 second longer in 60,000 years... and one minute longer in another four million years, its all very exciting I'm sure).

Left to their own devices, tidal acceleration means the Earth and Moon will achieve a spin–orbit resonance in about 50 billion years, however in another projected 5 billion years our main sequence star* will have consumed much of its helium and become a red giant. With an estimated size increase from 0.01 astronomical unit to 2, the fate of Earth is unclear but using the Roche limit to work out the effects on tidal forces on the planet, its highly likely to be destroyed along with Mercury and Venus in the sun's outer layers.

As far as I'm concerned, faith finds itself out the window, in the gutter where it belongs.

*according to the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.

How do you arrive from celestial mechanics at your conclusion that faith goes out the window?

(February 6, 2010 at 11:04 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: How do you arrive from celestial mechanics at your conclusion that faith goes out the window?

It was leo-rcc's premise that we can't know anything for sure like, 'the Sun rising in the morning', therefore we need the persuasion of faith to give us the confidence that Earth will rotate. I don't have this outlook on knowledge, with regards to pondering on absolute certainties, its nothing more than a red herring.

To the best of our knowledge the Earth has rotated for a long time, its physical, it conforms to the laws of physics that govern the universe, thus through empirical evidence and repeatability we can determine the Earth will continue to do so for a long time. As a method of investigation of giving the most consistently reliable results faith is useless. It fails in distinguishing what is true from false within the context of reality and practical knowledge.

I don't have faith, I don't assert truth onto anything that manifests itself until I understand it better through the scientific method.

(February 6, 2010 at 1:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(February 6, 2010 at 11:04 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: How do you arrive from celestial mechanics at your conclusion that faith goes out the window?

It was leo-rcc's premise that we can't know anything for sure like, 'the Sun rising in the morning', therefore we need the persuasion of faith to give us the confidence that Earth will rotate. I don't have this outlook on knowledge, with regards to pondering on absolute certainties, its nothing more than a red herring.

It would be a red herring if leo was deliberately trying to divert from the subject. He clearly isn't. He is elaborating on what we can know. That's totally on subject. The inability you show to grasp what he is saying does not amount to him raising another subject.

Welsh cake Wrote:To the best of our knowledge the Earth has rotated for a long time, its physical, it conforms to the laws of physics that govern the universe, thus through empirical evidence and repeatability we can determine the Earth will continue to do so for a long time. As a method of investigation of giving the most consistently reliable results faith is useless. It fails in distinguishing what is true from false within the context of reality and practical knowledge.

As I understand leo, nothing of this is refuted by him. The point is that 'to the best of our knowledge' does not necessarily equal 'truth'. About truth we should be precise. We should be careful to not overstate the claim. Leo is just being careful and precise. The model of the world created by man does not dictate reality. There is no logical reason why the model should work for future events. This is where the empirical scientific method differs from deductive mathematical reasoning. This is acknowledged by science itself and known as the Problem of Induction. Please read up on it.

Welsh cake Wrote:I don't have faith, I don't assert truth onto anything that manifests itself until I understand it better through the scientific method.

And still you cannot claim absolute truth when you're done with that. All scientific truths are tentative truths. Just as your mechanical account of movement of celestial bodies was a tentative one that was replaced by the more accurate relativistic account that Einstein formulated.

(February 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It would be a red herring if leo was deliberately trying to divert from the subject. He clearly isn't. He is elaborating on what we can know. That's totally on subject. The inability you show to grasp what he is saying does not amount to him raising another subject.

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding. I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

Purple Rabbit Wrote:As I understand leo, nothing of this is refuted by him. The point is that 'to the best of our knowledge' does not necessarily equal 'truth'. About truth we should be precise. We should be careful to not overstate the claim. Leo is just being careful and precise.

I never said models dictate reality because I don't stupidly overstate or generalise up some authoritative circular argument such as 'our knowledge is truth because we defined knowledge'.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:The model of the world created by man does not dictate reality. There is no logical reason why the model should work for future events.

Yes human constructs are subjectively true and certainly arguable this much I already know, but concepts based on reality play their role in reflecting and demonstrating to us a *better understanding* of how reality works. Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all? To the best of our knowledge, they redefine themselves only when current explanations are found to be invalid or unreliable at explaining reality. That's why the scientific method, while not perfect in the context of absolute certainty, is still one of the most powerful tools for analysing our universe we have today. Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

Purple Rabbit Wrote:This is where the empirical scientific method differs from deductive mathematical reasoning. This is acknowledged by science itself and known as the Problem of Induction. Please read up on it.

I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:And still you cannot claim absolute truth when you're done with that. All scientific truths are tentative truths. Just as your mechanical account of movement of celestial bodies was a tentative one that was replaced by the more accurate relativistic account that Einstein formulated.

I said understand it better, not entirely. I'm not claiming absolute certainty; get rid of this pointless notion of 'knowing anything and eveything for sure', arguing for or against objectivism is nothing but a red herring and counterproductive. I'm talking about practical knowledge, i.e. in the context of what is useful to determine fact from fantasy.

To the "best of our knowledge" Earth will continue to rotate today and for the foreseeable future, which obviously counts for something, since its morning where I am, and the sun is rising.

EDIT: had the ordering of my sentence arse-backwards there. XD

(February 7, 2010 at 5:19 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(February 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It would be a red herring if leo was deliberately trying to divert from the subject. He clearly isn't. He is elaborating on what we can know. That's totally on subject. The inability you show to grasp what he is saying does not amount to him raising another subject.

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding. I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

The word 'faith' can mean different things. Leo's use of it to me simply seems to mean 'assumption that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. Where did you spot 'blind hope' in his answers?

Welsh cake Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:As I understand leo, nothing of this is refuted by him. The point is that 'to the best of our knowledge' does not necessarily equal 'truth'. About truth we should be precise. We should be careful to not overstate the claim. Leo is just being careful and precise.

I never said models dictate reality because I don't stupidly overstate or generalise up some authoritative circular argument such as 'our knowledge is truth because we defined knowledge'.

Your lengthy expose on celestial motion seemed to suggest that that's all there is to it. You did not acknowledge in there that there are things we don't know, or don't know exactly. But now you have cleared this up you can join Leo in his assertion that we have to assume some things we don't know, not meaning that the assumption cannot be questioned.

Welsh cake Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:The model of the world created by man does not dictate reality. There is no logical reason why the model should work for future events.

Yes human constructs are subjectively true and certainly arguable this much I already know, but concepts based on reality play their role in reflecting and demonstrating to us a *better understanding* of how reality works.

Of course. I am not arguing against it, quite the opposite.

Welsh cake Wrote:Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all?

I indeed have quite extensively argued for the advancement of science here on AF and against the pseudo-knowledge of theism. But we should not overstate the claim made by science, that's all. Often in arguments with theists that have all the 'answers' provided by their god, a need might emerge to claim the same for science, but this is a trap we should not step into. I agree that scientific knowledge is the best around but at the same time it is not complete and it is tentative. It is OK not to have all the answers.

Welsh cake Wrote:To the best of our knowledge, they redefine themselves only when current explanations are found to be invalid or unreliable at explaining reality.

So? Isn't that what is meant by tentative knowledge? Or are you in need for other reasons?

Welsh cake Wrote:That's why the scientific method, while not perfect in the context of absolute certainty, is still one of the most powerful tools for analysing our universe we have today. Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

I completely agree and in discussion here on AF I have found no reason to think that Leo has a different opinion on this.

Welsh cake Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:This is where the empirical scientific method differs from deductive mathematical reasoning. This is acknowledged by science itself and known as the Problem of Induction. Please read up on it.

I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

Leo should speak for himself but I think you got stuck on a particular interpretation of the word 'faith' and that there really is no issue at hand.

Welsh cake Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:And still you cannot claim absolute truth when you're done with that. All scientific truths are tentative truths. Just as your mechanical account of movement of celestial bodies was a tentative one that was replaced by the more accurate relativistic account that Einstein formulated.

I said understand it better, not entirely. I'm not claiming absolute certainty; get rid of this pointless notion of 'knowing anything and eveything for sure', arguing for or against objectivism is nothing but a red herring and counterproductive. I'm talking about practical knowledge, i.e. in the context of what is useful to determine fact from fantasy.

It seems the world is rapidly decaying in nothing but red herrings with you. If you watch closely, your discontent over absolute certainty smoothly integrates with what Leo is saying.

Welsh cake Wrote:To the "best of our knowledge" Earth will continue to rotate today and for the foreseeable future, which obviously counts for something, since its morning where I am, and the sun is rising.

Who am I to disagree? Travel the world and the seven seas... And words along that line.

Welsh cake Wrote:EDIT: had the ordering of my sentence arse-backwards there. XD

Don't it somehow makes sense that your arse is at the back ;-)

(February 7, 2010 at 5:19 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(February 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It would be a red herring if leo was deliberately trying to divert from the subject. He clearly isn't. He is elaborating on what we can know. That's totally on subject. The inability you show to grasp what he is saying does not amount to him raising another subject.

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding.

In order to move forward we do sometimes need to take some things as faith and if and when our understanding of a given subject increases we might find a better way of explaining these things. That is the nature of the game. We couldn't explain lightening properly, and when we got a better understanding of electricity, the hypothesis that lightening is a very powerful electrical discharge was formed and later on through experimentation found to be accurate.

Quote:I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

Show me anywhere in this thread where I did anything like that? Since when have I argued for blind hope? All I am arguing, as I have stated from the very beginning, is that past experiences are not evidence for future events. All you can do with them is make educated guesses. How much faith is required is solely dependent on the subject matter.

Quote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:As I understand leo, nothing of this is refuted by him. The point is that 'to the best of our knowledge' does not necessarily equal 'truth'. About truth we should be precise. We should be careful to not overstate the claim. Leo is just being careful and precise.

I never said models dictate reality because I don't stupidly overstate or generalise up some authoritative circular argument such as 'our knowledge is truth because we defined knowledge'.

Neither have I. So what is your problem?

Quote:Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all?

Now that is a Red Herring. I've never argued that, not even implied that.

Quote:Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

I never claimed it did.

Quote:I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

I don't either because that is not how I defined faith, if you ever bothered to look.

(February 7, 2010 at 5:19 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding. I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

---

Here you're clearly stating a comparitive definition of faith as blind hope.

(February 7, 2010 at 5:19 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

Yes human constructs are subjectively true and certainly arguable this much I already know, but concepts based on reality play their role in reflecting and demonstrating to us a *better understanding* of how reality works. Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all? To the best of our knowledge, they redefine themselves only when current explanations are found to be invalid or unreliable at explaining reality. That's why the scientific method, while not perfect in the context of absolute certainty, is still one of the most powerful tools for analysing our universe we have today. Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

---

So then how do we have a "better understaning" of mental illnessses or criminal tendencies. Why is having a basis in reality the only way to constructively contribute to the betterment of society? And what's your definition of reality?

(February 7, 2010 at 5:19 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

---

Here's is another wild definition of faith. What do you really define as faith? Ok you guys ahave had some seriously good stuff on here but could each of you do a short recap of things so far? Maybe we can get definitons straight.

Maybe we should add "conscious" in front of the word, faith. We live and breathe on faith and we do so without a conscious effort. Like breathing. There's enough evidence for us to believe the sun will come up the following day but oh how I've known so many people who didn't foresee that their life would be cut short the following morning.

(February 7, 2010 at 9:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I completely agree and in discussion here on AF I have found no reason to think that Leo has a different opinion on this.

Yes, but for the sake of faith it is not okay to dismiss those few answers we do have.

Purple Rabbit Wrote:Leo should speak for himself but I think you got stuck on a particular interpretation of the word 'faith' and that there really is no issue at hand.

Now I didn't notice 'faith' being used out of its typical 'Asserting the truth onto X', 'Give us hope for the future' context, or given another definition for the sake of the argument, but if you feel that Leo was playing devil's advocate with the term the entire time, then by all means show me where I got the misinterpretation from.

(February 7, 2010 at 11:04 am)leo-rcc Wrote: In order to move forward we do sometimes need to take some things as faith and if and when our understanding of a given subject increases we might find a better way of explaining these things. That is the nature of the game. We couldn't explain lightening properly, and when we got a better understanding of electricity, the hypothesis that lightening is a very powerful electrical discharge was formed and later on through experimentation found to be accurate.

These are intuitions you are speaking of, not faith-based assumptions.

leo-rcc Wrote:Show me anywhere in this thread where I did anything like that?

You elaborated on faith for quite a bit Leo, or maybe I misunderstood the point you were making?

(February 5, 2010 at 11:36 am)leo-rcc Wrote: There is no valid reason to assume that the Earth will keep rotating so you will see the Sun again. Is is a matter of faith. No matter how many good reasons you have of believing that you are correct does not make it any less of an assumption. Just because we know the Earth has always done it, is not a guarantee that it will continue to rotate.

Is the Earth likely to continue? Yes. Is it certain to continue? No. Do we therefore assume that the Earth stops rotating? No. We assume that it does continue, we have to accept on faith that it doesn't stop.

As for having a job next month, that is so dependent on so many factors that you have no choice but to accept on faith that you will still have a job next month and work hard to balance the odds in your favour. There is no basis outside faith to assume so.

leo-rcc Wrote:Neither have I. So what is your problem?

I have no problem I'm just disagreeing with your original statement for good reason.

leo-rcc Wrote:Now that is a Red Herring. I've never argued that, not even implied that.

Would you like me to include a *Welsh cake was responding to Purple Rabbit* disclaimer in your post? Just say the word buddy and I'm there.

leo-rcc Wrote:I don't either because that is not how I defined faith, if you ever bothered to look.

To be honest, I don't actually mind how you defined "faith", as tangible as it was, it was how you applied the term as not only practical but essential for unforeseeable future events that actually bothered me to some extend. I object to that argument because faith is not reliable, therefore hardly practical.

(February 7, 2010 at 9:04 pm)tackattack Wrote: Here you're clearly stating a comparitive definition of faith as blind hope.

I made no such conjunction. However, having faith in the most unlikely of all possible outcomes is technically the same as having blind hope.

tackattack Wrote:So then how do we have a "better understaning" of mental illnessses or criminal tendencies?

Fixed. To effectively answer that then you must ask to what degree must guilt be proven? Beyond a reasonable doubt, of course. It's the highest level or standard of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is, to convince the court that any given proposition is true.

tackattack Wrote:Why is having a basis in reality the only way to constructively contribute to the betterment of society?

Because a cooperative society that cannot distinguish fact from fiction, true from false, opens itself to every conceivable form of abuse there is, internal and external. Our modern-day civilization wouldn't last long under that mentality.

tackattack Wrote:And what's your definition of reality?

As much as I enjoy your asyndetic thinking, don't go all 'metaphysical objectivism' on me today. Reality, as most people like to define it, is the state of things that are real, what actually exists.

tackattack Wrote:Here's is another wild definition of faith. What do you really define as faith? Ok you guys ahave had some seriously good stuff on here but could each of you do a short recap of things so far? Maybe we can get definitons straight.

Faith's broad definition is the confident belief in future events or outcomes and in the context of belief involves a concept that does not rest upon on logic or evidence. Because of this you can substitute 'trust' in place of 'faith' as well.

When dealing with something as complex as reality itself I rationally try not to put trust in anything.