My OPINION

[Borror0]

Let's keep this simple: is it demonstrably true or false that the Earth is round? I'll go ahead and answer that for you: yes. Therefore, the shape of the Earth is never subject to one's opinion.

Actually, it is.

To consider the Earth as round, you have to make multiple assumptions. The most important one is scientifically consistency is important. Sure, you may say that one is insane if he rejects consistency, but that is also a judgment. If you did not value consistency as important, you could come up with something other than "The Earth is round."

Whether we view something as a 'fact' is subjective. We put value on each argument tossed in our direction.

While some positions can only be rejected in a way that society will view you as insane or mentally ill, but that's also a judgment. No one is objectively sane or insane. That's decided by the strongest. From en evolutionary standpoint, valuing consistency is superior and that is why it is important in our society. It could be otherwise.

Hence why fact are subjective. I may view as a proof something that is not to you.

[branmakmuffin]

That's observational and circumstantial evidence.

Thanks for providing that example.

Actually, it is.

Actually, it's not, but I can't wait to see how you try to claim that it is.

Whether we view something as a 'fact' is subjective. We put value on each argument tossed in our direction.

Well, we agree on something. Whether we view something as fact is subjective. Whether something is a fact is objective. Our personal views on or beliefs of how the universe works has no bearing on how the universe actually works, although, as I have stated several times, it will certainly affect how we interact with the universe.

You seem to be approaching this from a very human-centric point of view, as if you're saying "Nothing is so until humans believe it to be so."

[bobbryan2]

Thanks for providing that example.

Are you dense? I addressed the fact that it hasn't been wrong before. But that's not a proof that it will never go wrong in the future.

Math has no way of proving itself right... therefore belief in math is a faith. It's really quite simple. You don't have to believe it... but you're not right in that belief.

[Borror0]

You seem to be approaching this from a very human-centric point of view, as if you're saying "Nothing is so until humans believe it to be so."

Whether what we assume to be true is accurate or not, we have no ways of finding out.

We can choose something because it is pragmatic, but we have no ways of finding out if it is true. Valuing usefulness is an opinion that could be disagreed on.

[branmakmuffin]

Are you dense? I addressed the fact that it hasn't been wrong before. But that's not a proof that it will never go wrong in the future.

Don't confuse sarcasm with density.

Technically, yes, it's not proof that it will never "go wrong" in the future (whatever it means to say that math and/or logic have "gone wrong"). Presumably we'd have to find a universe where different laws apply. But, to put it mildly, it's not quite in the same realm of "faith" as something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Yet you seem to want to put these two things in the same category regarding "faith."

To demand proof of something for which there exists uncountable examples of supporting evidence and no contrary evidence is close to insane.

[bobbryan2]

Don't confuse sarcasm with density.

Technically, yes, it's not proof that it will never "go wrong" in the future (whatever it means to say that math and/or logic have "gone wrong"). Presumably we'd have to find a universe where different laws apply. But, to put it mildly, it's not quite in the same realm of "faith" as something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Yet you seem to want to put these two things in the same category regarding "faith."

To demand proof of something for which there exists uncountable examples of supporting evidence and no contrary evidence is close to insane.

At it's core.. it's fundamentally the same thing.

[Borror0]

To demand proof of something for which there exists uncountable examples of supporting evidence and no contrary evidence is close to insane.

Proofs do not objectively prove a statement.

We subjectively conclude whether the proofs prove the statement.

[Samadhi]

Soo Oogli - to get back on topic - what are your thoughts on how a certain poster continues to prove the exact point your original post was about

[Samadhi]

Proofs do not objectively prove a statement.

We subjectively conclude whether the proofs prove the statement.

I can't believe you are still trying to convince fish that there is a whole sequence of life outside of the water. Kudos for effort!!

[branmakmuffin]

At it's core.. it's fundamentally the same thing.

If by that you mean there is no difference between the "faith" required to "believe" in science and the faith required to believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence, then they not even close to the same thing. The former is based on logic ("I see this evidence, and the most logical conclusion is this"). The latter is based on faith ("I have this belief, and no negative evidence nor lack of positive evidence will dissuade me").

Faith = "conclusion comes first"
Logic = "evidence comes first"

[bobbryan2]

If by that you mean there is no difference between the "faith" required to "believe" in science and the faith required to believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence, then they not even close to the same thing. The former is based on logic ("I see this evidence, and the most logical conclusion is this"). The latter is based on faith ("I have this belief, and no negative evidence nor lack of positive evidence will dissuade me").

Faith = "conclusion comes first"
Logic = "evidence comes first"

You can justify it any way you want to... and I would expect a similar justification from any believer. Belief in a 'higher power' seems pretty well ingrained in the human psyche. The 20th century has brough 'science' and 'logic' to that level. Science is the new religion.

[Borror0]

Faith = "conclusion comes first"
Logic = "evidence comes first"

A position can be scientifically, mathematically or logically inconsistent. A position cannot be objectively wrong.

To view any of the above three as absolute truth is an opinion.

[branmakmuffin]

Science is the new religion.

Got any more platitudes to lay on us? Black is the new white?

When you resort to platitudes, you've thrown in the towel.

Edit: Since you're hellbent on supporting the notion that science requires faith in the same way religion does, there's nothing more we can say to each other, is there?

[CrimsonEagle]

Fact.















I am sorry that I read this whole thing.


Opinion.










This is silly.

[Borror0]

Got any more platitudes to lay on us? Black is the new white?

A more accurate way to put it would be "Science is the new paradigm". It does not mean it is right. I remind you religion once was the prevailing paradigm in Western civilization.

[Vardak]

If by that you mean there is no difference between the "faith" required to "believe" in science and the faith required to believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence, then they not even close to the same thing. The former is based on logic ("I see this evidence, and the most logical conclusion is this"). The latter is based on faith ("I have this belief, and no negative evidence nor lack of positive evidence will dissuade me").

Faith = "conclusion comes first"
Logic = "evidence comes first"

Hmm well not exactly.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

As we can see; the scientific method asks us to form a conclusion then test to see if the conclusion is supported by observation.

Faith and Science seek to obtain the same goal.. simply to explain that which we do not understand.

[Korvek]

As we can see; the scientific method asks us to form a conclusion then test to see if the conclusion is supported by observation.

Er, no. Hypothesis != Conclusion. Also, hypotheses are almost always formed based upon previous experimentation. Evidence is always first or at least has been since the 1600s.

You don't make a conclusion before gathering evidence. Asking "What temperature will ice melt at?" is a question, not a conclusion. Then stating "I think it will melt at 2 degrees Celsius" is essentially an educated guess (Hence the background research). Then you test it, and find out "Doh, I was wrong. It melts at 0 degrees Celsius." Your conclusion is that the melting point of ice is 0 degrees Celsius. An accurate conclusion can be drawn only from evidence. Note: this does not mean an accurate conclusion cannot state something along the lines of "In the experiment, the melting point of ice was 1 degree Celsius, though the equipment used was difficult to read and operate, so there were possibly some errors." Admittedly, it is difficult to prove literally everything, but hundreds of thousands of experiments coming up with the same result is a good indicator.

The point of science is to increase the amount of knowledge about the way the world/universe works. Religion does not possess the goal of increasing knowledge (In some specific cases, it seeks to halt such an increase).

[Mhykke]

The point of science is to increase the amount of knowledge about the way the world/universe works. Religion does not possess the goal of increasing knowledge (In some specific cases, it seeks to halt such an increase).

Not to butt in, but I don't know if your last point is necessarily true. I mean, I see where you're coming from.....but I think a good argument can be made that religion not only possesses the goal of increasing knowledge (about the way the world/universe works), but that this goal is the ultimate answer to the question of how the world/universe works.

[bandyman1]

not To Butt In, But I Don't Know If Your Last Point Is Necessarily True. I Mean, I See Where You're Coming From.....but I Think A Good Argument Can Be Made That Religion Not Only Possesses The Goal Of Increasing Knowledge (about The Way The World/universe Works), But That This Goal Is The Ultimate Answer To The Question Of How The World/universe Works.

/qft.

[Borror0]

As we can see; the scientific method asks us to form a conclusion then test to see if the conclusion is supported by observation.

Contrarily to common belief, religion starts with 'evidences' and concludes.

Theists and atheists both came to their conclusion through their personal experience. Even if brought the same evidences, the two individuals could come to opposed point of views because of the value they would give to each argument. For some, scientific evidences in favor of evolution are sufficient to disprove creationism as described by the Bible. To others, this is not a compelling arguments. It all depends on the judgment they pose on the argument. If to you it only seems logic that God created humans himself to his image, than that is what you will believe.

That's how belief in God first came to be. One human, at one point in time, felt that there must be a greater being at the cause of his existence. It only seemed obvious that his existence couldn't be meaningless. (Here, I am assuming theists believe that only their religion was brang to Earth by God and that all other religions are man made.)

Science does not say that life came to be through the means of evolution, assuming so is no different that believing that there must be a God at the origin of our existence. The only thing science state is that evolution is a valuable tool that o far brings satisfactory results in predicting events. Science says that evolution "works", not that it's true. Science does not care about truth, it cares abut results. Thus, believing that a scientific statement is true is unscientific and is an opinion.