O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

[movingon]

It's not an either/or proposition. Science and religion operate in two different spheres that don't necessarily overlap.
You can believe in both, as long as your particular religion doesn't demand that you believe ridiculous things that you'll have a hard time reconciling with science.
All this about quantum superposition is just mumbo-jumbo though.
You're extrapolating a scientific phenomenon to ... somewhere else.
Quantum mechanics should not inform how you interpret the world at a spiritual level.
That's some Deepak Chopra nonsense.

I think rather than debate science vs religion, we can agree that the Universe manifests itself to us in different, very personal ways. And in watching the research on quantum physics, I get the feeling we shape our reality with our expectations. Some people choose religion as this expression. I can respect that as long as someone's belief doesn't demand denial of what is objective in front of their faces. And some people interpret data & information in a non-spiritual way. I can respect that too unless it leads one to close the possibility that there are forces and intelligence at play that we can't comprehend currently. That's not what science demands.

Quantum superposition allows for so many possibilities. I think closing off any of them, science or spiritual is a mistake.

I'd like to see scientific advancement with everyone being open minded about the possibilities in front of them, be it God or Gas.

[Iron Mantis]

There's nothing scientists love more than disproving theories. You get big fame from that.
Of course scientists are fallible, there's no doubt about that.
But science if not often (not to say never) proved wrong by non-practitioners.
There's certainly no proof that evolution is not responsible for fish and humans, right?

Just b/c you haven't fallen through the Earth yet doesn't mean you won't tomorrow.
You assume that what you have observed you will keep observing, which is not necessarily true.
It's a belief.
Evolution is a scientific belief.
You are free not to believe.
I do not know of a satisfactory counter proposal, and I find the evidence quite compelling.
I there accept by interpolation that this theory covers gaps in the fossil record that can never be complete.
I would attribute a confidence level to this belief only somewhat smaller than my belief that I will not fall through the Earth tomorrow (which by the way is in principle possible in a quantum mechanic description, even if the probability is fantastically negligible given the macroscopic scales involved.)

Chemicals are just as much "alive" as anything else. It's a fuzzy boundary. There's no firm boundary between life and other chemical reactions. Complexity spans the range from simple reactions to viruses to prions to humans.

I agree with you 100%. Science is a belief. That you will not fall through the Earth in 2 seconds is a belief. There are no facts that are not based on assumption at some level. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism about science. Scientists are humans like everyone else. We hold no special monopoly on the truth. Some people choose to believe that the fossil record is an elaborate ruse by the magic man in the sky.

We work hard to make logical connections between what we observe. We work hard at that. Finding logical flaws in science just by browsing the internet isn't likely to land you anything convincing. You're absolutely free not to believe in science. People believe all sorts of s**t. The round Earth is a government conspiracy, the bible, pizzagate, etc.

Do you.

FInding logical flaws in science doesn't require "browsing the internet". Objective, critical thinking...you know... isn't some evolutionary super power only scientists are endowed with.

One way we can constitute living from non-living is by isolating what all living things have in common. https://sciencing.com/do-living-organisms-common-8143489.html

At the very least, every living thing contains a full blueprint of functional information in the form of DNA/RNA.

The assumption That you will not fall through the earth in 2 seconds is a nice hypothesis. However, since it is a falsifiable assumption, it can be put through the rigors of the scientific method. The results will produce empirical evidence.

Assumptions though are just that, assumptions. In good science, empirical evidence trumps assumptions in what is accepted as truth.

I believe ALL established science that is derived through empirical evidence; I don't "believe in" the other brand.

Yes, I understand your view, and position, and appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

I was primarily making my argument to counter a popular stance, another poster mentioned, that there's no such thing as "believing in" science. You've helped demonstrate that there is, and that it's the prerogative of the believer.

These last thoughts in PeoplesChamp's post are ultimately how I also feel.

Quantum superposition allows for so many possibilities. I think closing off any of them, science or spiritual is a mistake.

I'd like to see scientific advancement with everyone being open minded about the possibilities in front of them, be it God or Gas.

[PeoplesChamp]

It's not an either/or proposition. Science and religion operate in two different spheres that don't necessarily overlap.
You can believe in both, as long as your particular religion doesn't demand that you believe ridiculous things that you'll have a hard time reconciling with science.
All this about quantum superposition is just mumbo-jumbo though.
You're extrapolating a scientific phenomenon to ... somewhere else.
Quantum mechanics should not inform how you interpret the world at a spiritual level.
That's some Deepak Chopra nonsense.

I think rather than debate science vs religion, we can agree that the Universe manifests itself to us in different, very personal ways. And in watching the research on quantum physics, I get the feeling we shape our reality with our expectations. Some people choose religion as this expression. I can respect that as long as someone's belief doesn't demand denial of what is objective in front of their faces. And some people interpret data & information in a non-spiritual way. I can respect that too unless it leads one to close the possibility that there are forces and intelligence at play that we can't comprehend currently. That's not what science demands.

Quantum superposition allows for so many possibilities. I think closing off any of them, science or spiritual is a mistake.

I'd like to see scientific advancement with everyone being open minded about the possibilities in front of them, be it God or Gas.

Right. But, I was being a dreamer with that post, so I wasn't being completely grounded in science or religion with what I was saying.

But saying Quantum Mechanics shouldn't inform me spiritually isn't for you to say. Every scientific study I learn about inspires my spiritual side. There are people who misuse the word quantum to push some mumbo jumbo, because they don't understand the material. But,t he complexity, beauty, and the processes of the Universe touches my scientific and spiritual side. There's so much that we don't know, that stating certain things conclusively is a mistake scientists have made for centuries. Especially things we can't know.

[Iron Mantis]

Watch on YouTube

Fascinating video.

Although his story was for illustrative purposes, I believe there are indeed higher forms of life & intelligence existing in a higher dimension that overlaps ours; we simply cannot readily access, or even point to it, to investigate it, much like Sagan explained.

It's presumptuous to claim everyone who's had experiences with the supernatural, whether of divine nature or of the malevolent sort, are all crazy. In fact, there are real estate laws in place to protect buyers from unwittingly purchasing haunted houses.

Nearly 1 in 5 americans claim they've seen the manifestation of a spirit. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

Although I don't believe "ghosts" are actually dead people back alive in another form, it's interesting to consider another plane of existence within ours, and how life in it affects us.

[KnickFan33]

There's nothing scientists love more than disproving theories. You get big fame from that.
Of course scientists are fallible, there's no doubt about that.
But science if not often (not to say never) proved wrong by non-practitioners.
There's certainly no proof that evolution is not responsible for fish and humans, right?

Just b/c you haven't fallen through the Earth yet doesn't mean you won't tomorrow.
You assume that what you have observed you will keep observing, which is not necessarily true.
It's a belief.
Evolution is a scientific belief.
You are free not to believe.
I do not know of a satisfactory counter proposal, and I find the evidence quite compelling.
I there accept by interpolation that this theory covers gaps in the fossil record that can never be complete.
I would attribute a confidence level to this belief only somewhat smaller than my belief that I will not fall through the Earth tomorrow (which by the way is in principle possible in a quantum mechanic description, even if the probability is fantastically negligible given the macroscopic scales involved.)

The underlined is incorrect. Evolution is not a scientific belief, it is a scientific theory. Nitpicking? Perhaps. But the wording matters. Judging by your post, I assume you understand why.

My question is... why do you "believe" in evolution (or science in general)? Is it because that's all you've been taught? Do you find evidence supporting it to be valid? Something else?

[KnickFan33]

Breed away, wolves and dogs together remain the same species.

Do people believe science's explanation that life spontaneously arose from inanimate chemicals and transformed into every form of life we have today? Yes.


Has science provided empirical evidence to support these explanations. No.


Conclusion: people "believe in" science.

Your conclusion is still based on opinion with nothing to back it up. I doubt you have interviewed enough people who "believe" in science in a large enough scale to be representative of the population.

"wolves and dogs together remain the same species" ignores taxonomic classification, dna analysis, biology, macro/microscopic changes, recorded history, etc. What more evidence might be needed to be convincing that the two are different? Additionally, the same evidence goes against the idea of all species being "created" at the same time.

60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people "believe in" science.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Going back and forth about adaptations between dog v wolf will not prove they emerged from a bacteria, or that a dog was ever a fish. Dog v wolf simply allows for variances within a kind. They are not different enough to prove that any environmental factors or random mutations can transform a fish to a wolf over time. If I am mistaken, please provide the empirical data.

Please provide empirical data to support how, in and of itself, a pool of inert chemicals can become a bio coded information, interpretation, and construction system: DNA/RNA and cell and their constituents.

Please provide empirical data to prove a bacteria or a fish can end up as a human.

If I am mistaken, please provide the data with empirical evidence.

Why am I "insisting on proof"? Because science encourages scrutiny and questioning. And cold, hard proof is what separates science from religion, faith, and philosophy, right?

It appears you haven't read the article you posted.

About half of those who express a belief in human evolution take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” (32% of the American public overall). But many Americans believe that God or a supreme being played a role in the process of evolution. Indeed, roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”

That is evidence that they find to be valid. I would assume the latter two underlined portions are also take the first underlined into account. That is not blind faith in science.

Whether or not you find the evidence to be convincing, is up to you.

[Iron Mantis]

Your conclusion is still based on opinion with nothing to back it up. I doubt you have interviewed enough people who "believe" in science in a large enough scale to be representative of the population.

"wolves and dogs together remain the same species" ignores taxonomic classification, dna analysis, biology, macro/microscopic changes, recorded history, etc. What more evidence might be needed to be convincing that the two are different? Additionally, the same evidence goes against the idea of all species being "created" at the same time.

60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people "believe in" science.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Going back and forth about adaptations between dog v wolf will not prove they emerged from a bacteria, or that a dog was ever a fish. Dog v wolf simply allows for variances within a kind. They are not different enough to prove that any environmental factors or random mutations can transform a fish to a wolf over time. If I am mistaken, please provide the empirical data.

Please provide empirical data to support how, in and of itself, a pool of inert chemicals can become a bio coded information, interpretation, and construction system: DNA/RNA and cell and their constituents.

Please provide empirical data to prove a bacteria or a fish can end up as a human.

If I am mistaken, please provide the data with empirical evidence.

Why am I "insisting on proof"? Because science encourages scrutiny and questioning. And cold, hard proof is what separates science from religion, faith, and philosophy, right?

It appears you haven't read the article you posted.

About half of those who express a belief in human evolution take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” (32% of the American public overall). But many Americans believe that God or a supreme being played a role in the process of evolution. Indeed, roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”

That is evidence that they find to be valid. I would assume the latter two underlined portions are also take the first underlined into account. That is not blind faith in science.

Whether or not you find the evidence to be convincing, is up to you.

It appears you are having trouble comprehending the whole crux of my argument:

"60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people 'believe in' science. "

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

[movingon]

But saying Quantum Mechanics shouldn't inform me spiritually isn't for you to say. Every scientific study I learn about inspires my spiritual side. There are people who misuse the word quantum to push some mumbo jumbo, because they don't understand the material. But,t he complexity, beauty, and the processes of the Universe touches my scientific and spiritual side. There's so much that we don't know, that stating certain things conclusively is a mistake scientists have made for centuries. Especially things we can't know.

I think I get your point.
If you think quantum mechanics is really beautiful that's great. I agree wholeheartedly that there is much that we do not know, and certain things which are unknowable. If science informs your intuition about things beyond the scope of science itself, I can't knock it. The inverse, however, does bother me. What bothers me is the rejection of science, or even worse, pseudo-science like intelligent design. We hear things like this all the time: "Evolution is just a theory". People seem to want to level the playing field between science and their belief system, when in fact they belong in different domains. If you have to contort your belief system to be compatible with science, or contort science to be compatible with your belief system, then there is clearly something wrong with one or the other. Sometimes it's the science that wrong, but that wouldn't be my first bet.

[robillionaire]

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

And my response to that is, so what? When a method works and delivers consistent results, as the scientific method does, people are going to tend to trust it. What's the problem? People "believe in" a calculator to give them the correct result to a math problem without knowing how the inner workings of a calculator provide that answer and most the time they don't double check that answer on paper. But are they justified in using it and believing that the answer is correct? Sure. Because they have prior experiences and evidence that it consistently works, and has worked in the past, just as the scientific method has. Sure it would be better if every single person took the time to study it for themselves and had a deeper understanding of how and why it works but it's not a requirement and just because people many don't doesn't make the method any less effective or the results any less accurate. And it doesn't put a calculator on the same grounds as a magical math solving bullfrog, for example, just because a lot of people believe in it without fully understanding it.

[Iron Mantis]

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

And my response to that is, so what? When a method works and delivers consistent results, as the scientific method does, people are going to tend to trust it. What's the problem? People "believe in" a calculator to give them the correct result to a math problem without knowing how the inner workings of a calculator provide that answer and most the time they don't double check that answer on paper. But are they justified in using it and believing that the answer is correct? Sure. Because they have prior experiences and evidence that it consistently works, and has worked in the past, just as the scientific method has. Sure it would be better if every single person took the time to study it for themselves and had a deeper understanding of how and why it works but it's not a requirement and just because people many don't doesn't make the method any less effective or the results any less accurate. And it doesn't put a calculator on the same grounds as a magical math solving bullfrog, for example, just because a lot of people believe in it without fully understanding it.

(sighs)

Poster says "believing in science" is not a thing.

I say it is and postulate my position.

The end.

your "so whats" have nothing to do with anything

[KnickFan33]

60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people "believe in" science.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Going back and forth about adaptations between dog v wolf will not prove they emerged from a bacteria, or that a dog was ever a fish. Dog v wolf simply allows for variances within a kind. They are not different enough to prove that any environmental factors or random mutations can transform a fish to a wolf over time. If I am mistaken, please provide the empirical data.

Please provide empirical data to support how, in and of itself, a pool of inert chemicals can become a bio coded information, interpretation, and construction system: DNA/RNA and cell and their constituents.

Please provide empirical data to prove a bacteria or a fish can end up as a human.

If I am mistaken, please provide the data with empirical evidence.

Why am I "insisting on proof"? Because science encourages scrutiny and questioning. And cold, hard proof is what separates science from religion, faith, and philosophy, right?

It appears you haven't read the article you posted.

About half of those who express a belief in human evolution take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” (32% of the American public overall). But many Americans believe that God or a supreme being played a role in the process of evolution. Indeed, roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”

That is evidence that they find to be valid. I would assume the latter two underlined portions are also take the first underlined into account. That is not blind faith in science.

Whether or not you find the evidence to be convincing, is up to you.

It appears you are having trouble comprehending the whole crux of my argument:

"60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people 'believe in' science. "

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

The crux of your argument was that people believe in science in the way that people believe in their various religions. Namely, blind faith. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[robillionaire]

If you have no greater point to make from that argument, it is a useless argument that doesn't warrant a discussion

[Iron Mantis]

It appears you haven't read the article you posted.



That is evidence that they find to be valid. I would assume the latter two underlined portions are also take the first underlined into account. That is not blind faith in science.

Whether or not you find the evidence to be convincing, is up to you.

It appears you are having trouble comprehending the whole crux of my argument:

"60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people 'believe in' science. "

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

The crux of your argument was that people believe in science in the way that people believe in their various religions. Namely, blind faith. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Define "blind faith".

[Iron Mantis]

If you have no greater point to make from that argument, it is a useless argument that doesn't warrant a discussion

The spirit of my argument is that a measure of faith is required in both science and religion. I'm still waiting on the empirical evidence for a bacteria randomly adding the necessary information to become a new creature.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[robillionaire]

I would ask you to define “believe.” The dictionary definition is “to accept something as true”. So we agree that people accept the scientific process as true. I have suggested that the reason why people accept it as true is because the method of science works and people can observe that it works due to their past experiences and evidence. So we have very good reasons for accepting the scientific process as true, or as you say, to beleive in it. We are just arguing semantics at this point. Now you are invoking faith, which also requires a definition. So to define that, faith is the belief in something without evidence. But we have evidence that the scientific process works. So faith is not required to accept that the scientific process works or as you say, to beleive in, science.

Is a measure of faith required to predict that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, or can you confidently make that prediction based on evidence and prior experiences? Of course we can’t know with 100% absolute certainty that it will, but we can make a calculated prediction based on evidence. To me, that isn’t faith

[robillionaire]

I guess this is why agreeing on terms and definitions is important before even getting into the meat of these discussions

[Iron Mantis]

I guess this is why agreeing on terms and definitions is important before even getting into the meat of these discussions

lol true!

I would ask you to define “believe.” The dictionary definition is “to accept something as true”. So we agree that people accept the scientific process as true. I have suggested that the reason why people accept it as true is because the method of science works and people can observe that it works due to their past experiences and evidence. So we have very good reasons for accepting the scientific process as true, or as you say, to beleive in it. We are just arguing semantics at this point. Now you are invoking faith, which also requires a definition. So to define that, faith is the belief in something without evidence. But we have evidence that the scientific process works. So faith is not required to accept that the scientific process works or as you say, to beleive in, science.

Is a measure of faith required to predict that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, or can you confidently make that prediction based on evidence and prior experiences? Of course we can’t know with 100% absolute certainty that it will, but we can make a calculated prediction based on evidence. To me, that isn’t faith

Yes I agree on the definition of "believe". Sun rising can be put through the scientific method; empirical.

The scientific method, when properly utilized, is quite rigorous and rock solid, producing empirical evidence; no faith is needed. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

That is a good definition of faith in this context.

The things that cannot be tested by the rigors of the scientific method, hence, no empirical evidence or actual proof for (such as a bacteria randomly adding new information necessary to transform into a more advanced creature and become every life form in existence today) require faith, by definition.

[KnickFan33]

It appears you are having trouble comprehending the whole crux of my argument:

"60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people 'believe in' science. "

The involvement of intelligence in evolution is irrelevant to my primary argument: people 'believe in" science.

The crux of your argument was that people believe in science in the way that people believe in their various religions. Namely, blind faith. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Define "blind faith".

For the sake of keeping things on point, I'm willing to let you make the definition so we can have a debate within that definition's parameters.

[Iron Mantis]

The crux of your argument was that people believe in science in the way that people believe in their various religions. Namely, blind faith. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Define "blind faith".

For the sake of keeping things on point, I'm willing to let you make the definition so we can have a debate within that definition's parameters.

You keep using the expression, not me. So define it. I don't know what it means.

[PeoplesChamp]

But saying Quantum Mechanics shouldn't inform me spiritually isn't for you to say. Every scientific study I learn about inspires my spiritual side. There are people who misuse the word quantum to push some mumbo jumbo, because they don't understand the material. But,t he complexity, beauty, and the processes of the Universe touches my scientific and spiritual side. There's so much that we don't know, that stating certain things conclusively is a mistake scientists have made for centuries. Especially things we can't know.

I think I get your point.
If you think quantum mechanics is really beautiful that's great. I agree wholeheartedly that there is much that we do not know, and certain things which are unknowable. If science informs your intuition about things beyond the scope of science itself, I can't knock it. The inverse, however, does bother me. What bothers me is the rejection of science, or even worse, pseudo-science like intelligent design. We hear things like this all the time: "Evolution is just a theory". People seem to want to level the playing field between science and their belief system, when in fact they belong in different domains. If you have to contort your belief system to be compatible with science, or contort science to be compatible with your belief system, then there is clearly something wrong with one or the other. Sometimes it's the science that wrong, but that wouldn't be my first bet.

Science is science. It's under no obligation to be understood by us and put in our boxes. Absolutely. One of the fulfilling parts of being human is the creativity and spiritual which comes from a place we still don't completely understand. Sure, many people over time have simply had God reside in the space where human ignorance about reality lives. But that doesn't totally account for the presence of religion & spirituality. There's **** science is going to discover that will blow our minds, and its mind. What if one of those things was an extra dimensional being? Not saying God, but, wouldn't that blow the doors off for people in science AND religion?