RE: Is belief......?

RE: Is belief......? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arpig -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 10:08:48 AM)
quote: In that time, she's seen hundreds of "guaranteed", "rational", "documented" scientific ideas shot down in flames because later evidence proved that we didn't know what the heck we were talking about That is the difference right there. Science does, and in fact is based on the idea of, testing and disproving its various ideas. Science is not something subject to belief, it is subject to testing. If A, then B, therefore C....OK lets check that out and see if its right or not. When a new theory is postulated, one is not asked to believe it, one is presented with evidence collected and the theory, and invited to test ot for themselves. Granted in today's world we cannot all go about testing the latest in string theory (even if we understand it), however that testing is being done. Given that, I guess one could say that a person believes in that theory, however unlike in the case with religion, the theory is presented as just that: an idea that is and should be tested to assess its validity. I have never heard of a religion that asks its followers to continually test, update, modify, and discard its teachings. That is the difference, science invites us to subject its conclusions to testing and verification, while religion demands we subject its conclusions to blind faith. So I will concede that we, as members of the public, must believe a scientific theory (or not) since we are not qualified (intellectually or educationally), or economically capable of testing it ourselves, that belief is based on the understanding that those who are capable of testing it are doing so, and are in the process of modifying and refining the idea as soon as it is made known. Take the favourite bugaboo of the religious: the theory of evolution. It has been studied and tested non-stop since before Darwin first laid out his ideas. It has been modified and tweaked and altered as these tests were done, and new data was acquired. The basic theory still stands as unfalsified, yet the present theory of evolution is not that postulated by Darwin. In fact Darwin was not the originator of the idea, the greeks had the basic concepts around the 6th century BCE. Darwin refined the ideas already existant into a coherent theory of "natural selection" that gained popular attention. Darwin's theory was not about if evolution occured, but about the mechanics of how it occured, something that is overlooked by many who debate evolution. Here again is the difference between science and religion. Science subjects its ideas to analysis and development, while religion does not.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 11:43:45 AM)
... which would work great, IF people actually discarded old, worn-out theories in favor of what new evidence was presenting, which, frankly, doesn't happen as often as the -concept- of science would like us to think. Heck, there are doctors still prescribing low-calorie, low-salt diets and weight gains of less than 20 lbs for pregnant women, even though it's been proven for 30 years that this combination leads to an -increase- in low-birth-weight babies and an increase in maternal morbidity and birth complications (including pre-eclampsia and eclampsia). The theory is sound -- but in practice, it seems more apparent that human beings still cling to 'belief' by any name they choose to call it -- and calling it 'science' doesn't decrease the amount of bad information or unethically-motivated information spewed out in its name. Dame Calla

Starbuck09 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 1:22:06 PM)
Science and religion are seperate to one another, entirely so, but that does not mean that they have to be anathema to one another. Religion requires faith which is a sacrifice, there is no guarrantee that you are correct in your beliefs but you believe strongly enough that you are willing to take a leap of faith and live your life accordingly regardless. Religion makes, in my opinion, a terrible mistake in attempting to use science to ''prove'' God [a good example would be the nauseating young creationists] if one were to prove God then there would be no faith, there would be knowledge and so no sacrifice required. I do not have faith in gravity or oxygen it is self evidently there so I do not choose to believe in it, it is simply a demonstrable fact. Science is a tool to understand the world around us, if that is enough for a man to live by then more power to him. Religion is seperate untouchable by science [just as science is impervious to religous reasoning] and that is how it should be a guide to how to live your life ONLY if you choose to have faith in it. Even the snake understood that back in Eden knowledge in the case of God is worthless.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 3:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW One thing that does have to be addressed is that science, despite being apparently based on "fact" is, on many occasions, wrong/flawed. Facts themselves (statistics and damned statistics) may be immutable, but how they are 'window-dressed' affects the validity of the pure data, sometimes to the point where it becomes nothing more than 'belief'. This brings me back to a point I made earlier: science is not the amalgamation of results and concepts yielded from study and testing...it is the process by which the results are wrought. Science provides the most consistent and perennially reliable means by which to gain information that humanity has. It is the USDA Prime grade beef of acquiring information. Does that mean that USDA Prime grade beef cannot and will not ever be contaminated? No. And an occurrence of it doesn't suddenly mean that it is no longer Prime quality or that it gets automatically demoted to Select or Choice grade. "Belief" is absolutely the most erroneous term to use here because that word explicitly implies investment in an idea that has no evidence or consistent validity. Think of some of the most respected Dom/mes you know personally and on this site. Think of them making one error in judgment. Based on that one error (which they've likely addressed and corrected themselves), do you suddenly suspiciously consider them essentially on par with the troll Dom/mes of the site who would start off their first message board thread with a diatribe about the "one twue way"? quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW One of my companions has been a research scientist for 20+ years. In that time, she's seen hundreds of "guaranteed", "rational", "documented" scientific ideas shot down in flames because later evidence proved that we didn't know what the heck we were talking about This goes right into my last sentence above. You will find that it is always inevitably science that pokes the holes in previous scientific theories. That's because the system itself is based on skepticism. It's based on self-criticism and scrutiny and only the ideas that continue to pass rigorous replicated tests are considered "scientific fact" (which, by definition, ignores silly metaphysical possibilities of anything being potentially wrong). Even if new innovation and discoveries render older ideas antiquated or null, it doesn't mean that we didn't have the most sensible explanation with the available information at the time. quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW -- so in its own way acceptance of the accuracy, sanctity, and factual nature of science is just another form of belief, not so different from belief in a spirit, or a god--and with that being the case, how is one 'belief' different from or incompatible with, another 'belief'? Of course it is different because honest scientists have no emotional investment in whether an idea is correct or incorrect. Scientific results are the difference between you, in your numerous years of real life D/s poly household experience, being painted as no more qualified an individual to speak on such matters than a 19 year old whose first experience of either of those is having arrived at this site a week ago. It means that I can go read an article about Honda engines and be magically just as qualified to repair my roommate's car than someone who's been working as a foreign car mechanic for 20 years. Sure...in the end you can say that since we both say we can fix the car, we both have that "belief". But, clearly, the two are not remotely the same. quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW He believes in science. She believes in God. Then he is either misrepresenting science or is using the word "belief" inappropriately or his use of the word is being unfairly applied contextually. Sure, it's possible to "believe" in science...but I fail to recognize any reason to need to believe in something that is demonstrably real. I don't need to believe that I own a cat. quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Someone else believes in both. Another person believes in neither. In the end, it's all just 'belief' and boils down to which "evidence" we are willing to accept and which we put blinders on so as not to "taint" our "research sample". My few cents Calla This is why "belief" is a grotesque word. This is precisely what happens if we presume that materialism does not work. But everyone in the word inevitably yields to it. We don't go about our daily lives in "belief" that everything we do is happening. You get into the shower and turn the knob, you know it's going to work. And if it doesn't, you still know the reasons it likely isn't. You don't sit there imagining that maybe there's a conspiracy against you bathing by a local town militia who's cut your water line. See..."belief" has no universal measuring stick. Meaning, there is no way to tell that X belief is more real than Y belief. Person A believes they are Napoleon reincarnated. Person B believes his name is Tom. Both, using the logic that "belief" gives us, are just as valid. And the reason they are just as valid (along with every and any other possible bit of fanciful conjecture) is because we have chosen to forfeit the only means we have by which to measure things realistically: materialism...our senses and the input they give. We can't have both. Either all belief is equally and realistically valid (which is obviously incoherent) or we yield to the means we have to determine whether something is more real or not (even if our senses could be totally wrong [e.g. we're in The Matrix]).

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 3:35:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW ... which would work great, IF people actually discarded old, worn-out theories in favor of what new evidence was presenting, which, frankly, doesn't happen as often as the -concept- of science would like us to think. Heck, there are doctors still prescribing low-calorie, low-salt diets and weight gains of less than 20 lbs for pregnant women, even though it's been proven for 30 years that this combination leads to an -increase- in low-birth-weight babies and an increase in maternal morbidity and birth complications (including pre-eclampsia and eclampsia). I'm quite honestly clueless about the physiological topics you're discussing and/or the potential debates that professionals would have about them, but there is one point I'd make regarding this: How was it discovered that low-calorie, low-salt diets can cause complications in some women during pregnancy, qualifying them as more negative than positive?

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is belief......? (6/8/2009 5:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW ... which would work great, IF people actually discarded old, worn-out theories in favor of what new evidence was presenting, which, frankly, doesn't happen as often as the -concept- of science would like us to think. Heck, there are doctors still prescribing low-calorie, low-salt diets and weight gains of less than 20 lbs for pregnant women, even though it's been proven for 30 years that this combination leads to an -increase- in low-birth-weight babies and an increase in maternal morbidity and birth complications (including pre-eclampsia and eclampsia). I'm quite honestly clueless about the physiological topics you're discussing and/or the potential debates that professionals would have about them, but there is one point I'd make regarding this: How was it discovered that low-calorie, low-salt diets can cause complications in some women during pregnancy, qualifying them as more negative than positive? If you really want to know, I'll be happy to tell you about it on the other side-- suffice to say, it isn't a pretty story of carefully done clinical studies. Calla

intenze -> RE: Is belief......? (6/11/2009 5:57:17 PM)
The problem with this is confusing the medical community with the scientific one. Scientists discovered that it was not a good idea to put expectant mothers on such a diet. There was enough QUANTITY and QUALITY of evidence to show this was the case. Good science does not always equal good medicine. If the evidence is there, and it is good repeatable evidence, then it becomes a theory. and is used in science to further knowledge. Sadly, medicine does not always follow that path, nor do they act in a scientifically acceptable way.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125