Posts: 795
Threads: 27
Joined: July 1, 2009
Reputation:
27
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 4:45 am
(September 30, 2009 at 10:29 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Correct. Well, mostly correct. I would say that if you do not follow those steps than you are not doing science (with some minor exceptions). The part about changing only one variable doesn't always hold true, and there are meta studies that do not involve doing any testing but amount to just compiling previous results. But those steps are pretty much how science gets done.
The interesting thing is that a restrictive view like yours disqualifies quite a number of fields accepted as science (e.g., anthropology) because the very nature of their subject precludes certain of those steps, sometimes for definitional reasons (e.g., scientific research involving history or prehistory), sometimes for ethical reasons (e.g., sociologists can't really experiment on people), and so forth. The steps are applicable for physics, chemistry, etc., but should the sociologist stop calling herself a scientist?
Or could you be convinced to think as I do, that the arena of science has a larger scope than that narrow definition?
(September 30, 2009 at 8:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So what I'm wondering is, how do you ever have any idea at all whether your prayers are ever answered?
Quite honestly, at first you have no idea. You pray for things and look for the answer to it, hoping he bends to your will, but you never really know for sure. Sometimes you'll experience a result that corresponds positively in some way to your prayer and you take that to mean God answered you. But in that quiet corner of the mind you don't want to admit or talk about, there lies the festering doubt produced by your inability to distinguish between an answered prayer and a weird coincidence—a fire that gets fueled by the infuriating ratio between positive corresponding results and the far more frequent absence of discernible results. It's a dissonance that cannot be tolerated long. You eventually reach a schism in your conscience and you can go one of two ways.
Most people call the positive results weird coincidences, shake their fist at what they consider divine silence, and eventually lose their faith. But some people find themselves struck by the epiphany that they are not infallible, that among the things possible for them to be wrong about, prayer might be included. So, questioning some of their basic assumptions, they decide to look up what God has to say about the nature of prayer. They might examine the template Jesus Christ provided, not only by what his own prayers looked like but also the nature of The Lord's Prayer, which he described as "how you should pray" (see Matt. 6:5-15). They may even notice that he said, "This is how you should pray," and not, "This is what you should say." After a while they begin to realize that they had been treating God like some cosmic Santa Claus, going to him with a list of their wishes along with promises that, if he answers, they will be good little boys and girls. As they learn what authentic and genuine prayer looks like, they are struck by how absolutely backwards they had it. They finally understand that prayer is not a shopping cart or wish list. That God is not their butler waiting to do their bidding, nor sitting around waiting for someone to pray him into awareness of what he already knows. And perhaps most important of all, that prayer is not about seeking their will but God's will. That he already has their best interest in mind. And that informing an omniscient being about something is sort of contradictory. Ultimately they begin to understand that authentic and genuine prayer is not a wish list but, rather, an act of worship, an intimate nexus of communion between them and their Father in heaven.
They know such authentic prayers are answered... because in that act of worship they experience the faithful presence of God.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 9:02 am
(September 30, 2009 at 1:55 am)Arcanus Wrote: Just out of curiosity, what constitutes a "big thing"?
Things that significantly matter, or impact my life. It's all about standards of evidence. If you tell me your name is John I don't have reason to question. If I'm trying to verify your identity for legal purposes, then it does become more important.
If you say you went to a coffee house this morning, it doesn't matter to me if you did so I'm not going to go "pics or it didn't happen" but if you say you saw a ghost, I'll need substantial evidence before believing since I hold a worldview that ghosts don't exists and if I believed you then it would change that worldview.
It was essentially a hasty way of expressing things that are going to prompt more rigorous standards before believing. I apply my skepticism to thinks like paranormal and supernatural things, medicine, religion, politics, etc...
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 10:47 am
(October 1, 2009 at 4:45 am)Arcanus Wrote: The interesting thing is that a restrictive view like yours disqualifies quite a number of fields accepted as science (e.g., anthropology) because the very nature of their subject precludes certain of those steps, sometimes for definitional reasons (e.g., scientific research involving history or prehistory), sometimes for ethical reasons (e.g., sociologists can't really experiment on people), and so forth. The steps are applicable for physics, chemistry, etc., but should the sociologist stop calling herself a scientist?
Arcanus,
Remeber I just took the first page I googled and posted it up because I felt it was fine for the purposes of giving a basic idea of the scientific method. In my answer to you I made it clear that there was more to science than just that one list (Meta studies for example). If you look over the list again I'm pretty sure you will agree that if you modified step four to include the use of previously gathered data to arrive at a conclusion, that it will then accomodate the other areas of science that you mentioned. Really the definition is only narrow because of step four, which I admit does make the method too restrictive. I would agree with the use of secondary data to draw conclusions as anthropology, sociology, and psychology often rely on.
What other steps do you have issue with? I only see a problem with step four.
Rhizo
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 2:40 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2009 at 2:45 pm by Violet.)
Praying aside, faith is just confidence in something. To have confidence in your knowledge, or in your evidence: is simply to have faith in their truth. Faith is always justified by ourselves, but that does not mean it is right...
So I do not have to see the sky to believe it exists... nor do I have to see my boyfriend every moment of every day to know he is not 'cheating on me'. And if I see the sky: I have even more faith that it exists. And if I see my boyfriend every moment of every day: I have even more reason to believe that he is not 'cheating' on me.
All of our knowledge is but the assumption that we are right... all of our evidence based upon chance circumstance... all of our logic presupposed by our justifications... all of our confidence a mere hope of the truth.
Prayer is just a cry for divine aid... but I find that when I call upon those who actually care: I am more likely to obtain said help. A placebo might help you feel better... but Faster, better, friendlier, and gentler help always comes from actually doing something.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Sae,
You have knowledge about the sky not faith. I would agree that your example of your boyfriend is a faith example, although given enough time with him, your belief in his faithfulness will just be knowledge based on your history with him. You should not conflate faith with confidence.
Rhizo
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:16 pm
This knowledge is but the assumption we are right... and that is an assumption that we are confident in (as in, we have faith in an assumption). Prove to me that the sky exists, in any more of a way than God exists (God is faith in an assumption). I am an existentialist, if you recall? 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm
(October 1, 2009 at 3:16 pm)Saerules Wrote: This knowledge is but the assumption we are right... and that is an assumption that we are confident in (as in, we have faith in an assumption). Prove to me that the sky exists, in any more of a way than God exists (God is faith in an assumption). I am an existentialist, if you recall?
Well, for starters you can see the sky. Can't say the same about God.
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm
lol! I know why it is blue too! Because if it was green we wouldn't know where to stop mowing!
Rhizo
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:22 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm by Violet.)
Are you sure you are not hallucinating? Maybe the sky is an illusion? Maybe if I live my entire life in an underground tunnel (never seeing the sky): then the sky could exist just as much as could God.
(October 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: lol! I know why it is blue too! Because if it was green we wouldn't know where to stop mowing!
Rhizo
Possibly... but that would be an egotistical assumption: the sky is made for us. However, it might be true: we cannot be certain.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Which Comes First?
October 1, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Maybe little trancendental gnomes hold up the sky! I know I have seen them through my asshole when I wear it as a hat!
You can manufacture ideas while isolated in your room but trust me, knowledge is real and reality isn't refereed by a girl/woman sitting at a computer no matter what her age.
Who said the sky was made for us? The trancendental gnomes work for underpants not us! sheesh! 
Rhizo
|
