When Faith and Science Clash

[Jackalope]

(spelling correction in quote is mine)

Ugh...thanks. I don't have a goddamn real-time spellchecker on this browser. It's the only browser for the iPad that flash videos, which is why I continue to use it.

Dude, don't sweat it. I just didn't want our fascist mods coming down on me for a quote edit. ;-)

[The Grand Nudger]

Especially the Nazi ones.........

[ChristLives]

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

---

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

[Darwinian]

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

---

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

No preaching please or your next post will be your last!

[Jackalope]

---

To a degree, this seems reasonable, whether said cognition is conscious or not.

Cognition is of course not necessarily rational or free from bias or distortion, and does not guarantee an correct or coherent answer, even within the constraints of one's own assumptions.

From my perspective, it is less useful to consider whether cognition has occurred, but rather to consider what degree it is being influenced by bias, distortion, and irrationality, as well as how coherent it is with one's assumptions and other beliefs.

---

Interesting argument. Wouldn't the processes causing bias, distortion and irrationality be something other than cognition itself? In which case, is it the faculty of cognition itself to blame or is it an error caused in its development?

To elaborate, we all are born without any cognitive faculties.

Is this firmly established? (I sincerely do not know). It seems apparent to me that we are born with cognitive capacity, though honestly I say this on the basis of intuition. Does a hungry newborn cry out of instinct, or because it wants to get a caregiver's attention and crying is the only tool it possesses? Again, I do not know.

I would certainly agree that newborns possess few cognitive skills, but I am not sure that equals a complete lack of faculty. My observation as a parent leads me to think that we DO possess cognitive faculty - as newborns rapidly develop and show signs of learning before they are capable of communication.

Of course, this does not make it so - but to me it does appear to be so.

And from some point after that we start developing these faculties. But each development uses whatever has been acquired before it as a basis.

No argument here.

Thus, ultimately, there would be many concepts that have been accepted at either face value or because they were accepted on the basis of other concepts that were taken at face value.

Yes - and I would add that the set of concepts that are integrated into the whole of one's consciousness is not necessarily (or even usually) fully coherent and rational. I would suggest that most people don't appear analyze their beliefs to that degree.

My position is that any bias or distortion is the result of this failure to apply the cognitive thinking towards some of the concepts that you have accepted as true.

Ah, I think this is where we part company, as I would suggest that it is the failure to apply rational cognition. I see nothing in the concept of cognition that implies that the result of cognitive thought must necessarily be true. I'll note that "knowledge" appears in dictionary definitions of "cognition", however, I would apply the common dictionary usage of the word here [e.g. information] rather than one as used in epistemology [e.g. justified, true, belief]. (I'm not of the opinion that "true" is a meaningful concept except in probabilistic terms.)

As an example, a young child who hears a noise and suspect that there may be a monster in her closet is employing cognitive thought processes, and yet comes to an untrue and irrational conclusion (assuming that there is in fact, not a monster in her closet). The child simply lacks the tools necessary to come to a rational conclusion, and is likely applying cognitive bias and distortion.

Adults should be less prone to such, however, I am not certain that we are capable of eliminating such irrationalities from our cognitive processes. (I'll note that this seems to be why the peer review process is both useful and necessary in academia.)

In which case, it is not the faculty itself that is inherently untrustworthy, but the errors made in its development which can be corrected for.

I'm not sure this is the case. Our cognitive process is in part driven by input from our senses, which are subjective. Additionally, it is also subject to errors in memory (which is likewise subjective). Even when subjective memory is backed by recorded knowledge (e.g. notes), such records are likely incomplete - and if our cognitive facilities are good at anything, they're good at filling in gaps. Subjectively.

I would agree that we can reduce cognitive errors, particularly in collaboration with others.

That while it is true that cognition is not necessarily rational or free form bias or distortion, it can be made so by finding the cause of the said bias and correcting the cognitive process by reapplying it to the principles that caused it.

True, when and if the biases and distortions are all identified and corrected. I would not be one to argue that humanity has developed to the point where this is a possibility. (It occurs to me that you may be arguing the hypothetical of what may be possible in our future. I'm approaching the issue from the POV of what we appear to be capable of in the present.)

In short, the flaws of though process that you are referring to as something other than cognition are what I would call flaws in rational cognitive thought. Perhaps your view of cognition is that it must necessarily be rational - mine is that it is not.

I'm not married to that position at all - I'm not formally trained in any of this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

---

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

Shoddy roman work ethic.........

[Anomalocaris]

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

---

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

Shoddy roman work ethic.........

Should have practiced on the apostles first.

[KichigaiNeko]

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

---

Christ LIVES! He is the eternal one! He is returning soon! Confess and love one another!

99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99,

Just about as relevant you twat.

[Cyberman]

69 would be more relevant.

---

2 in every 25 stars are class m (like the sun). That would be a minimum of 2 billion class M planets in our galaxy alone.

The Sun (or Sol) is actually a class G2 yellow dwarf. All this class M stuff is fallout from Star Trek.

[pocaracas]

69 would be more relevant.

---

2 in every 25 stars are class m (like the sun). That would be a minimum of 2 billion class M planets in our galaxy alone.

The Sun (or Sol) is actually a class G2 yellow dwarf. All this class M stuff is fallout from Star Trek.

Wasn't "class m" reserved to planets with an Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere, close to our Earth?