Thrive Movement

[DanimalTwo]

@MadWizard25: Well said.

[TechAngel85]

Yes, well said. Just as many "sciency types" can't understand many things about certain peoples views, at the same time many of those people can't understand how the "sciency types" can't understand theirs. The single largest example of this is religion. Most sciency types don't understand or believe in a deity be it God, Ala, Buddha, etc because there is no proof yet the other side of that coin are the people that do believe and say you don't need proof. That it's called faith. I've had experiences in my life that I can't prove that they were anything beyond a release of chemicals and their reactions in my body but my faith tells me otherwise.

[z929669]

Yes, so let it be a lesson then:

 

Chaos rules the day, regardless of how hard we try to apply the rule of order.

 

Humans and their factions are too selfishly disjointed to develop a proper global conspiracy. We are stuck with the piddly back-room deals cast among only a small (albeit, sometimes very powerful) few that may or may not have their private conspiracy augmented (or canceled out) by some other random conspiracy born of selfishness (a universal trait of anything with genes).

[MadWizard25]

@ TechAngel85

 

Interesting comment. I find this to be one of the cruxes of science and faith. You realize that when I talk about science its actually very familiar to that of faith. In fact, all I can say is that I put faith into, or believe in the philosophy of science. As an individual, I am severely subjective, as is anyone else. Therefore I cannot "know" explicitly that science is "true", insomuch as i can do the same for "god". Which is why I am agnostic and not atheist.

 

Still, past the point of individuality is where things get interesting. Again, science is the only belief system that really tries to be objective, which is what seals the deal for me. Once I go beyond myself, and acknowledge that im subjective, the best course to get a handle on reality is via objectiveness. Again, this only works because I am a Physicalist/ Materialist. The act of belief or faith is just a complex interaction of proteins, genes, neural cells, etc, in the brain.

 

So you say other experiences have told you otherwise. When people say this I think they are still have a physical reaction within the brain, any thought feeling memory or emotion is a physical process. Again though, this is because i believe in Physicalism.

 

This links up to the strength of the philosophy of science belief. While others cannot point and say "look, many of us have seen God (peer review in a sense), and hey, we can make it appear again (reproducibility), and all other competing theories (such as polytheism) can suck it (falsification)". Many have tried, but this doesnt happen. Sure, maybe on an individual level, but on a population level? No, only science seems to have worked to produce tangible facts.

 

For example; "Hey many of us have seen people having divine experiences (Observational). Can we test this? Sure. Okay, hey look all the same region of the brain lights up in fMRI, aint that neat? Is its statistically significant? (Statistical Analysis)Yes it is wohoo! Hmm, ok, lets see if people with lesions in this part of the brain are different. Oh, they are? Hey they cant have religious experiences, wow. Ok, now we know that there is a huge release of dopamine when this happens from previous test.... etc... etc." Here there is concrete testing, validations by other peers, etc.

 

Its not just about your personal experience, its about knowing with as least doubt as possible that others have been able to experience the same thing and externalized and internalized it! You can all believe you share a religious experience with others, but only science can step back and objectively measure it. This allows you to internalize information as close to truth as possible, and not just believe it "on faith" which many more magnitudes away from objective truth.

 

Its why science has been so successful, its the only belief systems that has worked on a population level to explain, or at least attempt, in detail, reality, with actual results, feedback into a physical universe. Results that can be shared and appreciated (like modern medicine) by many people across cultures, religions, nations, etc. 

 

So yes science and philosophy of science are also belief systems because we are subjective individuals and therefore cannot "know". However, its like democracy, not great, but better than the other political systems. Science, its not great (well I think its pretty great), but its better than the other belief systems (subjectively  ) 

 

Objectivity Objectivity Objectivity.....

Edited March 25, 2014 by MadWizard25

[z929669]

Any proper scientist MUST be agnostic, since there is no way to convincingly disprove the existence of a higher power. Likewise there is no way to 'prove' it either.

 

An atheist is just like a creationist with regard to their 'belief': they choose to have faith that there is no higher power or intelligent creator/conductor of life ... faith, because they cannot scientifically convincingly disprove it.

[EssArrBee]

Everyone on earth is agnostic. It is a misused word that is not a religious denomination but is often used as one. It means that you don't know if there is a god and no one can know that. You really only know if you die so ergo if you are alive then you are agnostic regardless of you religious beliefs. The correct term you are looking for is non-religious or rather you choose not to believe. Carl Sagan was non-religious and said that neither religious people or atheist people had ever shown him proof they were correct, so he was just non-religious.

[MadWizard25]

This comes with its own set of problems though. Disapproval is essentially falsification. A good theory must be falsifiable; in the sense that you can have a null hypothesis. Doesnt mean its false, just that there is a possibility of falsification.

 

Problem with god (or theory of theism since it has to be framed as such), is that its not falsifiable. It fails Poppers demarcation test, and is therefore not within the realm of science. So its possible that any proper scientist should not even entertain a stance regarding theism. Being agnostic is a stance within or at least linked to theory of theism.

 

Of course, you cant be too literal with Popper, but thats going too deep into philosophy for me.

 

I prefer the agnostic stance not because of testability of falsification, but rather because my view of the world is subjective. Even though there are probably "truths" and "facts", a person can never truly "know", since we filter everything through our brains. Im agnostic because I can never know if God truly exists, much like i cannot truly know a cell exists, or the observable and unobservable universe. Of course, this is just my opinion. Subjective objective view of the universe is still a un-resolved debate in philosophy. In any case, Im still exercising belief and faith (i use these words because i think essentially the same thing occurs neurologically whether you believe in science or god(s)) in science because it decreases subjectivity, rather than proves or disproves theories, and hence establishes fact/ truth.

 

@EssArrBee

 

Tricky semantics. I would argue that non-religious means you do not practice religion, which is separate from believing/ not believing/ being uncertain in a god or gods or whatnot. Its possible to be non-religious and atheist. But yeah, thats my own interpretation 

Edited March 26, 2014 by MadWizard25

[z929669]

 

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

Accepting this definition as Truth (which I choose to do), I am agnostic, and many others are not agnostic. All contrary arguments are purely philosophical, which is also purely subjective. Also, if we slip into non-existence when we die (as was our state for all time before each of us was born), then we still won't know anything at all about the grand Puzzle. All potential wasted effort

 

No hypothesis can be experimentally proven but rather only disproven (or falsified; but even that can be logically debated philosophically). The same applies to a supreme intelligence/creator ... theism and atheism are beliefs based on faith alone and cannot be falsified or even discredited. One's actions and justifications founded on one's beliefs are scientifically unjustifiable ... hence, I remain agnostic (see def above :P )

 

IMO, faith is a Pandora's Box that should not govern any action or justification.

[MadWizard25]

IMO, faith is a Pandora's Box that should not govern any action or justification.

 

Perhaps, but from my point of view, any action taken, even by you and me, is an application of faith. For example, I choose to act upon well constructed epidemiology research that shows increase in some disease and enact policy based upon it. This example would seem as if faith is out of the equation. However, this process is based partially on scientific methodology. You still need 'faith' in this process, faith in philosophy of science.

 

Again it comes down to the assumption that I am subjective, and therefore cannot truly "know" something objectively. Truths may exist in the universe, but they have to processed by my neurology, rendering them less than the absolute truth, due to my brain being limited.  It follows that I have take a leap of faith in trusting philosophy of science if i cannot know for sure. Maybe trust is a better word here than faith, with all its religious connotations.

 

Not only that, but I would bet that within the human brain, very similar processes are probably at work when a scientist talks about truth and philosophy of science versus someone who talks about god and its existence. Both people believe in something, even if they do not share the same language.

 

Admittedly, this view only works if one makes certain assumptions about existence and the brain. Absolute truth is tricky.

Edited March 26, 2014 by MadWizard25

[z929669]

What is fact is fact. Science deals in facts, not speculation. I choose to believe in only the tangible. Philosophy and theology are rabbit holes of confounding, IMO, and I dabble in each only to the extent that they support my own ideology :P

 

Then I get off that marry-go-round to nowhere.

[EssArrBee]

Science has tons of speculation. We call it estimation and hypothesis. And just like philosophy we get it from the world around us. The difference is the amount of testing that goes into it.

[Spock]

MadWizard summed up everything I wanted to say about the video and more exceptionally well!

 

There is a very good book in german, Animal Irrationale by Franz Wuketits. Sadly I couldn't find an english translation. It is about how evolution did not design our brains to grasp the very complex coherences of our modern world. During the stone age thinking in patterns that are simpler then our modern scientefic understanding of the world meant an evolutionary advantage. Not much has changed in our biological evolution since then. It also explains why people see correlations too easily and fall for illusions like god, the many conspiracy theories on youtube or racist propaganda (just to name a few). Those offer easy explainations for complex and scaring coherences.

 

What amuses me is that a believer using a computer is a little like a scientist going to church just for cookies

Edited March 27, 2014 by Spock

[z929669]

Science has tons of speculation. We call it estimation and hypothesis. And just like philosophy we get it from the world around us. The difference is the amount of testing that goes into it.

OK, splitting semantic hairs ... so ... science derives conclusions based upon fact and not speculation. Science derives questions based upon speculation. Hopefully that passes muster by the semantics police :P

 

Philosophy remains assumptive and speculative and draws logical conclusions based on schools of logic that do not necessarily have any basis in science, and those logic schools are almost infinitely malleable and have little to no bias constraint. ... if my words are not taken as I mean them, then let me clarify by stating that philosophy and philosophical schools of though (aside from the 'philosophy' of the scientific method) require many assumptions that are not derived from logic gleaned from facts gleaned from hypothesis testing. Philosophy != science.

 

A philosopher can always deconstruct a scientific argument or principle to the ultimate conclusion that perception != reality and further confound any argument into a quagmire of semantics. This is a black hole of thinking that negates any real progress, IMO. I am not qualified to mince words with any practiced student/rhetorician of philosophy (scientists != lawyers)

[MadWizard25]

Well, 10 or 20 years ago sure, you would have been correct z92. However, with advances in cognitive neuroscience i think there has been affirmation of certain schools of thought within philosophy; especially in regards to philosophy of the mind, which is now increasingly under the scientific umbrella. What i take away from this scientific discipline is that as an individual you almost certainly do not perceive reality as it is. I would argue that it is now less about philosophy, and more about science than ever before. Science is concluding that perception != reality.

 

Cognitive neuroscience is a fascinating subject, and contains perhaps the best theories at the moment regarding subjective view, consciousness, free will, etc. All which were previously hard questions in philosophy of the mind. Im not basing my opinions on philosophy, but rather on science. The snafu here is that some of the schools of thought within philosophy are being concluded as more accurate than the rest via scientific methodology, so its less assumption now and more conclusion, thankfully. This is why I might sound like i subscribe to philosophy rather than science, but in fact its the other way around.

 

And lets not forgot, philosophy essentially birthed science. And philosophy is still useful for speculation, as you so well put. Which means its actually useful for science as well, since we need direction in some cases where there is no previous research. What I think we see nowadays though, which im very pleased with, is science overcoming philosophy, even subjugating it. What used to be speculation is no more. In a way, the child is eating its progenitor. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by MadWizard25

[z929669]

Yep, I agree with your assertions and your conclusions. Philosophy tells us to "consider the tough questions" for which the scientific method can help to narrow the possibilities.

 

All I am pointing out is that many of the world's 'greatest' philosophers (today and historically) often mince words using semantic arguments and forms of circular logic or even convoluted logic (my term) to arrive at 'logical' conclusions that make no sense to the onlookers, who often get so confused that they defer to said philosopher as being "probably correct" because he/she is just so damn smart that nobody else besides another philosopher can understand him/her O_o

 

Scientific philosophy can be used to rein in all of that gobbledy-**** and arrive at truly logical conclusions whose clear hypotheses are tested using relatively simple methods. I am glad that neuroscience is nudging its way into traditional philosophy to clean things up a bit

 

Such methods should maybe be applied to this thread topic and all of its components ...