Perspective and Belief

[helmespc]

I'm not aiming to affirm that you either 'think make believe is real, or you don't'. I'm asking a question on 'semantics'. If you don't like the question then that's perfectly fine, but no need to voice it.

I'm sorry... I didn't mean that to be directed at you in any way. This discussion is still quite relevant. I was just voicing my opinion that I am more dumbfounded by the "believers" who are quick to point out that the belief in nothing is still a belief.

[Perhaps]

I'm not aiming to affirm that you either 'think make believe is real, or you don't'. I'm asking a question on 'semantics'. If you don't like the question then that's perfectly fine, but no need to voice it.

I'm sorry... I didn't mean that to be directed at you in any way. This discussion is still quite relevant. I was just voicing my opinion that I am more dumbfounded by the "believers" who are quick to point out that the belief in nothing is still a belief.

Ah, gotchya. No offence taken, and interesting point.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I would answer in relation to science that belief determines perspective. I say this because the way in which a scientific experiment is conducted would determine what is observed, thus affecting perception. I don't think that science conducts itself in a manner which follows our observations - that would simply lead to fixed conclusions based on what we want as a result. But perhaps I'm wrong here. Maybe science does create fixed results, simply confirming what we perceive to exist. Either way is interesting to think about.

Science isn't abut beliefs. Any given researcher may start out with nothing but a hunch (not usually the case) but that hunch won't have any effect on science whatsoever unless he can show his work, and unless what he believes is actually there in the results. Science conducts itself in a manner wholly based in our observations. No observations, no confirmation of those observations, no replication of experiments based upon or producing those observations, no peer review of everything already mentioned...no science.

We do often end up finding what we're looking for. Any number of reasons can lead to this, many are very well understood, others may be floating around but until such a time as they are elaborated upon there isn't much we can do about it. Thing about science and the scientific method is that it is designed to avoid this, and many careers are made without producing anything at all, only criticizing the things that others believed they had found when in actuality they had not.

You've confused yourself on a couple of counts at the end here. Conducting science based upon observation often does not lead to the result which we hope for, and science does not create fixed results that merely confirm what we perceive to exist. You've presented a false dichotomy. The aether has been missing for some time now, as a single example that elaborates on both of these points..lol. Many experiments were conducted to prove that the aether existed. They didn't give the results hoped for even though we were looking to confirm what we already perceived to exist. As a side note, there were experiments that seemed to imply that it did exist(some performed by researchers in an attempt to discredit the notion). Imagine their surprise. Ultimately the aether fell by the wayside due to experimentation, observation, and peer review.

[Godscreated]

I'm not aiming to affirm that you either 'think make believe is real, or you don't'. I'm asking a question on 'semantics'. If you don't like the question then that's perfectly fine, but no need to voice it.

I'm sorry... I didn't mean that to be directed at you in any way. This discussion is still quite relevant. I was just voicing my opinion that I am more dumbfounded by the "believers" who are quick to point out that the belief in nothing is still a belief.

I've never pointed out that belief in nothing is still belief, if I did that I would be an atheist, my belief in God is a sound belief no matter what anyone else believes.

---

@ Perhaps, it seems you are asking everyone to express if the glass is half full or half empty, just a thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether or not your belief is sound has nothing to do with what anyone believes. Yourself included.

[Perhaps]

You've confused yourself on a couple of counts at the end here. Conducting science based upon observation often does not lead to the result which we hope for, and science does not create fixed results that merely confirm what we perceive to exist. You've presented a false dichotomy. The aether has been missing for some time now, as a single example that elaborates on both of these points..lol. Many experiments were conducted to prove that the aether existed. They didn't give the results hoped for even though we were looking to confirm what we already perceived to exist. As a side note, there were experiments that seemed to imply that it did exist(some performed by researchers in an attempt to discredit the notion). Imagine their surprise. Ultimately the aether fell by the wayside due to experimentation, observation, and peer review.

So you would say that perception gives way to science which has the ability to negate our perception? While affirming that belief and science cannot be made equivalent or used synonymously.

In other words, science is a method which has no need to directly affect the way in which we interact with the world, unlike a belief. Perception precedes science, and it is science which explains our perception. Is that a correct summation of what you stated? If not, please feel free to correct me. I'm just trying to simplify what you said overall in regards to the question.

[Hoptoad]

What comes first belief or perspective, the chicken or the egg.

Personally I am inclined to say belief, but what kind and why? There is some evidence that belief in powers unknown is instinctive. That is not the kind of belief I want to talk about, I want to concentrate on the basic beliefs we all ,for the most part, hold. Take a child of say 2 or 3 years of age, any one who has children will know this. They do not question there own existence, that what they see is real (reality) or that they have choice (free will). None of which are falsifiable and in the case of reality demonstrably untrue.

From this base of belief, we form our perspective, we may later come to question those beliefs and therefore change our perspective.

[genkaus]

I think I would answer in relation to science that belief determines perspective. I say this because the way in which a scientific experiment is conducted would determine what is observed, thus affecting perception. I don't think that science conducts itself in a manner which follows our observations - that would simply lead to fixed conclusions based on what we want as a result. But perhaps I'm wrong here. Maybe science does create fixed results, simply confirming what we perceive to exist. Either way is interesting to think about.

Science isn't abut beliefs. Any given researcher may start out with nothing but a hunch (not usually the case) but that hunch won't have any effect on science whatsoever unless he can show his work, and unless what he believes is actually there in the results. Science conducts itself in a manner wholly based in our observations. No observations, no confirmation of those observations, no replication of experiments based upon or producing those observations, no peer review of everything already mentioned...no science.

We do often end up finding what we're looking for. Any number of reasons can lead to this, many are very well understood, others may be floating around but until such a time as they are elaborated upon there isn't much we can do about it. Thing about science and the scientific method is that it is designed to avoid this, and many careers are made without producing anything at all, only criticizing the things that others believed they had found when in actuality they had not.

You've confused yourself on a couple of counts at the end here. Conducting science based upon observation often does not lead to the result which we hope for, and science does not create fixed results that merely confirm what we perceive to exist. You've presented a false dichotomy. The aether has been missing for some time now, as a single example that elaborates on both of these points..lol. Many experiments were conducted to prove that the aether existed. They didn't give the results hoped for even though we were looking to confirm what we already perceived to exist. As a side note, there were experiments that seemed to imply that it did exist(some performed by researchers in an attempt to discredit the notion). Imagine their surprise. Ultimately the aether fell by the wayside due to experimentation, observation, and peer review.

Science may be required to be conducted in such a way that neither the scientists perspective nor his believes may affect the findings, but it a scientist may not be able to conduct it in such a manner. Its called confirmation bias.

[KichigaiNeko]

What comes first belief or perspective, the chicken or the egg.

Personally I am inclined to say belief, but what kind and why? There is some evidence that belief in powers unknown is instinctive. That is not the kind of belief I want to talk about, I want to concentrate on the basic beliefs we all ,for the most part, hold. Take a child of say 2 or 3 years of age, any one who has children will know this. They do not question there own existence, that what they see is real (reality) or that they have choice (free will). None of which are falsifiable and in the case of reality demonstrably untrue.

From this base of belief, we form our perspective, we may later come to question those beliefs and therefore change our perspective.

A Circle has no beginning nor any end ....

This you should well know

[The Grand Nudger]

So you would say that perception gives way to science which has the ability to negate our perception? While affirming that belief and science cannot be made equivalent or used synonymously.

In other words, science is a method which has no need to directly affect the way in which we interact with the world, unlike a belief. Perception precedes science, and it is science which explains our perception. Is that a correct summation of what you stated? If not, please feel free to correct me. I'm just trying to simplify what you said overall in regards to the question.

Perception sometimes gives way to science. Sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes any given experiment has no bearing on human perception in and of itself since the subject being investigated is beyond the usual range of human perception. In addition to this the average Joe has no idea what science is actually doing, and terrible misconceptions about the conclusions it reaches. Largely because a lot of science has no direct effect on the average Joe. Sometimes science negates our perception, sometimes it doesn't. People still believe in phrenology and alchemy, as a couple of examples. There are those who perceive a world filled to the brim with magic and magical things, in spite of the overwhelmingly negative conclusions science has reached on the subject.

It's not as though science and belief are mutually exclusive by way of their conclusions or how we leverage them. One can reach the same conclusions from either platform (at least in theory). The times when science and belief cannot be reconciled with each other are those moments in which an article of faith contradicts available evidence. You could hold beliefs that are roughly in accordance with scientific inquiry (though that would probably be very difficult, at some point your beliefs would cease to be beliefs and they would simply be science). However, no amount of belief will ever become science without leaving the realm of belief and going through the scientific method, which does not rely on belief at all. The difference is in the method. The methods are so wholly incompatible that it is impossible to equate the two. That's why we call one subject "science", and the other "belief".

Whether or not science needs to directly affect the way we interact with the world is a personal value judgement. It's also reversing the order of objects in the question. We're the ones with needs, yay or nay. As an aside, belief needn't affect our interaction with the world either. What you're describing here are choices. People choose to let science affect the way they interact with the world, people choose to let beliefs affect the way they interact with the world. The opposite for both cases is also true. Some choose to draw from both, some choose to draw from neither (GG solipsism). Arguing that people don't need science is a tough sell. Arguing that people don't need belief is a great deal easier. Either way, as I've said, personal value judgement. One is free to go whichever way they want. Trouble only arises when these two areas come into conflict with one another. One has the weight of demonstrable evidence behind it and the other does not.

Perception and belief both precede science, yes. We had a perception of the world around us (many times based upon belief, or vice versa) long before we started down the road of scientific inquiry. You may be attempting to simplify a subject which is not simple, and losing some key bits of the situation in the process.

By the by, scientists and science do fall prey to bias. Confirmation, selection, anthropic (the last one being extremely difficult to avoid), others as well. That's why we have peer review, and that's why it's important that we understand bias and how it can express itself in any given observation, experiment, or conclusion.