we really have no choice in being nebulous about a 'god". the bible is the best guess of 2000 years ago. But today we can less detailed picture of god because we now know what we don't know. well, sort of. So all we really can say is that there is "something", "nothing", or "I don't know enough." Then based on the list of evidence use assign proper weights to determine what is more valid. It might even end up being 50/50 between two of the many choices. That's ok.
I saw the use of dark matter as an example on how to think about it on another forum.
a) "do you believe in dark matter?"
Yes, no, and I do not know are reasonable answer today. The is not a lot of evidence for this "dark matter". But the data does suggest something is there. In fact, it is more reasonable to say that dark matter is "something" than to say "nothing" is causing what we see. But we have to understand just how little "data" we have. there is not much at all.
b) versus "let me tell you what I think dark matter is."
We have absolutely no direct observations as of yet. Nothing, nada, zilch. But we can take some reasonable guesses even though we know nothing.
This is where philosophy and science separate a little bit. Philosophers can make up some axioms under the disguise of "if/then" and then follow down a line of logic. Scientist are obligated to start at only what we do know right now. We use "if/then" also but the 'if's" have to be what can be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
They look very similar and when well written can look exactly the same. They are not. The weighted value of the axioms can be way off when comparing what we do have and what we made up even though we used the word logic.
to be continued ...
I saw the use of dark matter as an example on how to think about it on another forum.
a) "do you believe in dark matter?"
Yes, no, and I do not know are reasonable answer today. The is not a lot of evidence for this "dark matter". But the data does suggest something is there. In fact, it is more reasonable to say that dark matter is "something" than to say "nothing" is causing what we see. But we have to understand just how little "data" we have. there is not much at all.
b) versus "let me tell you what I think dark matter is."
We have absolutely no direct observations as of yet. Nothing, nada, zilch. But we can take some reasonable guesses even though we know nothing.
This is where philosophy and science separate a little bit. Philosophers can make up some axioms under the disguise of "if/then" and then follow down a line of logic. Scientist are obligated to start at only what we do know right now. We use "if/then" also but the 'if's" have to be what can be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.
They look very similar and when well written can look exactly the same. They are not. The weighted value of the axioms can be way off when comparing what we do have and what we made up even though we used the word logic.
to be continued ...
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
