Whenever i argue with somebody at my school, they always say "it isn't about evidence, its about FAITH"

That never made any sense, why have faith in something you don't know exists? Can masta theif or sammy explain this?

Faith that isn't proveable = stupidity? How do you KNOW its real?

And please no flaming the responses, unless they are responses like "I just.. know."

"Faith that isn't proveable = stupidity? How do you KNOW its real?"

Then we might as well give up and all die. No faith is provable thats kind of part of the point of having faith in anything.

Although I am an atheist, I feel that in the age of science, something important is missing, a void G-d filled. Personally, I agree with Karl Marx's theory of alienation and although God alienated ourselves from our true essence, what we have now, this age of nihilism, is even worse.

If G-d can do anything and knows all and is outside of the universe, then he is outside of logic and can bend logic. Therefore, faith is required to TRULY give yourself over to G-d. So whenever I see a Christian subordinating G-d to the Good or logic or truth, practically shackling Him, I get really annoyed because to me that's not faith, it's pseudo-faith. I haven't figured out yet whether they do it because they love science or fear this idea of God, but I'm seriously beginning to doubt that most the people who say they believe in God actually do instead of using it as a cheap comforter.

This has gotten rather off topic, but these thoughts have been going through my head all day. I dunno.

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

"Faith that isn't proveable = stupidity? How do you KNOW its real?"

Then we might as well give up and all die. No faith is provable thats kind of part of the point of having faith in anything.

why would we give up and die? I have no faith... and i'm doin' just fine.

Having faith in something with out evidence is stupid. Why believe in something that "[isn't] proveable."?

Ever heard of the problem of induction? Ever heard of solipsism?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Ever heard of the problem of induction? Ever heard of solipsism?

Yep. Solipsism is silly, in my opinion, and the problem of induction doesn't effect science in its entirety (only the assumption that things will be identical in the future).

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Yep. Solipsism is silly, in my opinion

How so?

quote:, and the problem of induction doesn't effect science in its entirety (only the assumption that things will be identical in the future).

Which parts doesn't it effect then? and is science as we know it able to exist with only these parts?

quote:Which parts doesn't it effect then? and is science as we know it able to exist with only these parts?

It certainly doesn't effect the past, therefore the theory of evolution, how our species got here, isn't wrong up to this point, although it could be in the future.

But really, I still don't think it's too big of a problem. We can use medicine to cure one person and we use inductive logic to figure it can cure all others, has it failed us? Not really, no, look at all the vaccines, etc. Let's be pragmatic about this.

As for your question about solipsism, I refuse to answer it because it's self-evident.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-23-2007).]

quote:It certainly doesn't effect the past, therefore the theory of evolution, how our species got here, isn't wrong up to this point, although it could be in the future.

True, but then, if science is limited to finding out things that happened in the past, that doesn't make it very useful does it?

quote:But really, I still don't think it's too big of a problem. We can use medicine to cure one person and we use inductive logic to figure it can cure all others, has it failed us? Not really, no, look at all the vaccines, etc. Let's be pragmatic about this.

No doubt you realise this is circular logic (I'm just pointing it out for everyone else); you can't use inductive logic to justify inductive logic.

So we have no logical reason to think it will work, yet we still use the medicine? You call this pragmatic, but in this case, pragmatic is the same as faith.

quote:As for your question about solipsism, I refuse to answer it because it's self-evident.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

If it were self evident then I would have no reason to ask the question.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-23-2007).]

quote:pragmatic is the same as faith.

What's your point? I got over my problem with faith long ago. I like faith, I just don't like faith in certain things. "Faith" in medicine has gotten better results than "faith" in Jesus in my opinion.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

What's your point? I got over my problem with faith long ago. I like faith, I just don't like faith in certain things. "Faith" in medicine has gotten better results than "faith" in Jesus in my opinion.

My point is that you can't avoid faith. My first post in this thread was directed at the OP, not you. Since you answered, I presumed you were defending him. Clearly I was mistaken.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

Whenever i argue with somebody at my school, they always say "it isn't about evidence, its about FAITH"

That never made any sense, why have faith in something you don't know exists? Can masta theif or sammy explain this?

Faith that isn't proveable = stupidity? How do you KNOW its real?

And please no flaming the responses, unless they are responses like "I just.. know."



One could argue, you're living on faith too. This world exists? So prove it. The world is nothing more than impulses interpreted by our brain.

I've heard some scientists say that our reality, or perception, exists because we believe that it exists.

Most have faith that everything they've experienced from birth until now is real.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

My point is that you can't avoid faith. My first post in this thread was directed at the OP, not you. Since you answered, I presumed you were defending him. Clearly I was mistaken.



I'm gonna side with dawkins on faith. I don't have "faith" that a ball i drop is going to bounce and come up again. I know it will do to reoccuring evidence. People who have "Faith" in medicine, are just hoping that due to its percentage of success will work. That's not faith, thats hope.

Faith is believeing in something without evidence. Thus, things like "i have faith my toilet will flush". well, has it flushed the last 10000 times? then i'd hope it would do the same again.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Although I am an atheist, I feel that in the age of science, something important is missing, a void G-d filled. Personally, I agree with Karl Marx's theory of alienation and although God alienated ourselves from our true essence, what we have now, this age of nihilism, is even worse.

If G-d can do anything and knows all and is outside of the universe, then he is outside of logic and can bend logic. Therefore, faith is required to TRULY give yourself over to G-d. So whenever I see a Christian subordinating G-d to the Good or logic or truth, practically shackling Him, I get really annoyed because to me that's not faith, it's pseudo-faith. I haven't figured out yet whether they do it because they love science or fear this idea of God, but I'm seriously beginning to doubt that most the people who say they believe in God actually do instead of using it as a cheap comforter.

This has gotten rather off topic, but these thoughts have been going through my head all day. I dunno.

Why did you start off saying G-d and then go to God?

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Why did you start off saying G-d and then go to God?

I just realized I was spelling it G-d after posting it. I've been reading about Judaism, and they're not allowed to spell his name, so they spell it G-d.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I just realized I was spelling it G-d after posting it. I've been reading about Judaism, and they're not allowed to spell his name, so they spell it G-d.

I've always thought that was stupid as fuck. I mean, isn't "God" not even his actual name, the real one being 72 words long or something? Meh, I haven't really looked into it, though. There might be good reasoning...

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I've always thought that was stupid as fuck. I mean, isn't "God" not even his actual name, the real one being 72 words long or something? Meh, I haven't really looked into it, though. There might be good reasoning...

Meh, some would say believing a 2000 year old carpenter that might not have even existed to be the son of God with the ability to walk on water is stupid as fuck, but whatever. I prefer Judaism to Christianity.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Meh, some would say believing a 2000 year old carpenter that might not have even existed to be the son of God with the ability to walk on water is stupid as fuck, but whatever. I prefer Judaism to Christianity.



I can't understand why you'd like Judaism more than Christianity. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I can't understand why you'd like Judaism more than Christianity. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Uh, why?

^ Maybe you two can exchange phone numbers and knock off having an irrelevant conversation in this thread?

http://sciencevsfaith.ytmnd.com/

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

Whenever i argue with somebody at my school, they always say "it isn't about evidence, its about FAITH"

That never made any sense, why have faith in something you don't know exists? Can masta theif or sammy explain this?

Faith that isn't proveable = stupidity? How do you KNOW its real?

And please no flaming the responses, unless they are responses like "I just.. know."

i understand where you guys are coming from! so dont worry i wont flame!

You'll see my answer to this in ressotamis topic"why must there be a meaning" its the first one i think, and the other ones are interesting as well!

please read it if you really want to know why!

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

I'm gonna side with dawkins on faith. I don't have "faith" that a ball i drop is going to bounce and come up again. I know it will do to reoccuring evidence. People who have "Faith" in medicine, are just hoping that due to its percentage of success will work. That's not faith, thats hope.

Faith is believeing in something without evidence. Thus, things like "i have faith my toilet will flush". well, has it flushed the last 10000 times? then i'd hope it would do the same again.

So you haven't heard of the problem of induction.

From your silence on the subject I'm going to assume you've never heard of solipsism either.

Maybe you should look into these topics.

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

why would we give up and die? I have no faith... and i'm doin' just fine.

Having faith in something with out evidence is stupid. Why believe in something that "[isn't] proveable."?



If you have no faith you have no hope you have nothing. All you could do is give up lay down and die. If you had no faith you would be dead.

dont listen to them you wanted an answer from a christian now all you athiest shut the hell up you know shit about our religion! so look at my comment i posted here earlier and there you go....the answer!

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

So you haven't heard of the problem of induction.

Why would you assume that? Someone who has heard of the problem of induction wouldn't expect a ball to drop downward and grabs the yellow pages for a plumber every time he's about to flush the toilet? We don't expect these things to happen just based on induction. There's deductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, etc. I'm pretty sure if you dropped a rock tomorrow and it flew towards the sky, you wouldn't be unsurprised and just chalk it up to the problem of induction. One's belief that a ball will fall toward the Earth is based upon evidence and takes zero faith.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Why would you assume that? Someone who has heard of the problem of induction wouldn't expect a ball to drop downward and grabs the yellow pages for a plumber every time he's about to flush the toilet?

No, but they would realise that that the past is not self justified when it is used to predict the future. Which is exactly the opposite of what he implied.

quote:We don't expect these things to happen just based on induction. There's deductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, etc.

Please demonstrate how deductive and abductive reasoning can justify (without inductive reasoning) believing that a toilet will flush.

Also, abductive reasoning is itself troubled by the problem of induction. One can't develop a hypothesis for evidence without presuming that the past allows us to predict the future.

quote:One's belief that a ball will fall toward the Earth is based upon evidence and takes zero faith.

Unless you can solve the problem of induction, this evidence in no way entails the conclusion.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

No, but they would realise that that the past is not self justified when it is used to predict the future. Which is exactly the opposite of what he implied.

Why don't people expect a ball to drop upward and that a toilet won't flush?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Please demonstrate how deductive and abductive reasoning can justify (without inductive reasoning) believing that a toilet will flush.

We know more about why things fall downward that go beyond repeated results, e.g., the more mass an object has, the more gravitational pull it has. Not all of our knowledge is based on inductive reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Unless you can solve the problem of induction, this evidence in no way entails the conclusion.

You can do a Google search and get plenty of proposed solutions to this type of philosophical bullshit.

Would you be surprised if you dropped a ball and it flew towards the sky? If so, why?

quote:

Why don't people expect a ball to drop upward and that a toilet won't flush?...

Would you be surprised if you dropped a ball and it flew towards the sky? If so, why?

Faith.

quote:

We know more about why things fall downward that go beyond repeated results, e.g., the more mass an object has, the more gravitational pull it has. Not all of our knowledge is based on inductive reasoning.

Haha. Do you think that scientists somehow developed these theories of how gravity relates to mass without using induction? They didn't. They observed the world they lived in and then made laws about gravity - assuming in the process that their past evidence could be used to predict the future.

quote:

You can do a Google search and get plenty of proposed solutions to this type of philosophical bullshit.

Even ignoring the unreliability of the internet and ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on you to list these solutions; I tell you that anything that you come up with will rely on faith.

How do I know this? Because a deductive justification for induction is impossible as induction does not ensure the truth of conclusions, and an abductive or inductive justification is an example of circular reasoning as it assumes that the problem has been solved in its premises.



[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-24-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Faith

Are you answering "Faith" to both questions? You would be surprised if a ball flew towards the sky merely because you have faith that it won't? You're being evasive. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you. I went through this with you once before and I won't go through it again.

Did you just decide to have faith that things would fall downward and not upward? Explain in more detail why you expect things to fall downward or I have no interest in continuing.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Haha. Do you think that scientists somehow developed these theories of how gravity relates to mass without using induction?]

It doesn't matter if induction is first used. We may notice that the sun causes us to tan because of repeatable results, and it may be because of repeatable results that scientists experiment to find out that melanin production is stimulated by sunlight. But once that information is concluded, it is evidence we have in addition to inductive evidence. That the research was done based on inductive reasoning is irrelevant.

quote:Are you answering "Faith" to both questions?

Yes.

quote:You would be surprised if a ball flew towards the sky merely because you have faith that it won't?

That's right

quote:You're being evasive.

Maybe you're just dim-witted?

quote:Did you just decide to have faith that things would fall downward and not upward?

One can't decide to have faith.

quote:Explain in more detail why you expect things to fall downward

Because I believe induction works. I don't have any justification for it. I don't have any magical arguments that prove it. I believe it through faith.

Because I believe solipsism is wrong. I don't have any justification for this. I don't have any magical arguments that disprove it. I believe it through faith.

quote:I have no interest in continuing.

Good, because you've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic philosophical concepts.

quote:It doesn't matter if induction is first used. We may notice that the sun causes us to tan because of repeatable results, and it may be because of repeatable results that scientists experiment to find out that melanin production is stimulated by sunlight. But once that information is concluded, it is evidence we have in addition to inductive evidence. That the research was done based on inductive reasoning is irrelevant.

Have you forgotten the question you were trying to answer?

'Please demonstrate how deductive and abductive reasoning can justify (without inductive reasoning) believing that a toilet will flush.'

It is therefore quite relevant that this requires inductive reasoning.

But even forgetting that, you seem to have implied that 'melanin production is stimulated by sunlight' is a deductively determined fact. This is quite wrong, as it presumes that because melanin has once been stimulated by sunlight, it will be in the future. Inductive reasoning.



[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-24-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Maybe you're just dim-witted?

Now, now. No need to show that you have no couth.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

One can't decide to have faith.

Bullshit. People decide to have faith in various things and people decide that having faith is silly and decide to drop it.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Because I believe induction works. I don't have any justification for it. I don't have any magical arguments that prove it. I believe it through faith.

Because I believe solipsism is wrong. I don't have any justification for this. I don't have any magical arguments that disprove it. I believe it through faith.

Talk about a cop-out answer! Yes, people can and do decide to have faith. You didn't decide to have faith in induction and you weren't born with it. What you were born with is the intellect form conclusions based on EVIDENCE. What you realize is that repeatable results IS evidence that can be relied upon! We KNOW that induction works! We KNOW that staying underwater for an hour will kill you through induction. There's no need to have faith in this. IT IS FUCKING EVIDENCE! When things fall downward over and over and over again, that IS evidence that it will happen again and there is something going on more than dumb luck! When rats die of rat poison over and over and over again, that IS evidence that the poison is indeed poison. No faith is needed to believe "induction works".



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Good, because you've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic philosophical concepts.

Uh, no I haven't. I don't even exist.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

But even forgetting that, you seem to have implied that 'melanin production is stimulated by sunlight' is a deductively determined fact. This is quite wrong, as it presumes that because melanin has once been stimulated by sunlight, it will be in the future. Inductive reasoning.

Weren't you paying attention? We've first come to the conclusion that sunlight causes tanning through inductive reasoning. I'm not a biologist and I'm not going to do a bunch of research on melanin production, but I know that scientists HAVE figured out the mechanism behind melanin production. But understanding the mechanism of melanin production was never necessary to prove that the sun is a component in tanning. Repeatable results was enough EVIDENCE to come to this conclusion. Belief with evidence is belief without faith. If someone hits himself with a rock over and over again and complains it hurts, we don't ask, "Don't you have faith that it's going to hurt the next time?" No, we would say something like, "Don't you have enough EVIDENCE that hitting yourself with a rock hurts?"

quote:Bullshit. People decide to have faith in various things and people decide that having faith is silly and decide to drop it.

Meh, I'm not gonna try and change your mind on this; it is irrelevant.

quote:What you were born with is the intellect form conclusions based on EVIDENCE. What you realize is that repeatable results IS evidence that can be relied upon! We KNOW that induction works! We KNOW that staying underwater for an hour will kill you through induction. There's no need to have faith in this. IT IS FUCKING EVIDENCE! When things fall downward over and over and over again, that IS evidence that it will happen again and there is something going on more than dumb luck! When rats die of rat poison over and over and over again, that IS evidence that the poison is indeed poison. No faith is needed to believe "induction works".

Ahahahaha. You can't justify inductive logic by using examples where inductive logic has worked and then asserting that it will work in the future, because this is justifying induction using induction. Can't you see that this is a circular argument?

quote:

I'm not a biologist and I'm not going to do a bunch of research on melanin production, but I know that scientists HAVE figured out the mechanism behind melanin production.

This uses inductive reasoning in at least two ways.

1. It assumes that our evidence on the nature of melanin production will apply in the future.

2. It assumes that because we have explained how melanin is produced in some occasions we can assert that this is how people everywhere get a tan.

quote:But understanding the mechanism of melanin production was never necessary to prove that the sun is a component in tanning. Repeatable results was enough EVIDENCE to come to this conclusion. Belief with evidence is belief without faith. If someone hits himself with a rock over and over again and complains it hurts, we don't ask, "Don't you have faith that it's going to hurt the next time?" No, we would say something like, "Don't you have enough EVIDENCE that hitting yourself with a rock hurts?"

Repeatedly denying that the problem of induction exists is not going to make it go away, no matter how hard you try. What you need is to demonstrate WHY this evidence entails the conclusions you are making. Which you won't be able to do as a deductive justification for induction is impossible as induction does not ensure the truth of conclusions, and an abductive or inductive justification is an example of circular reasoning as it assumes that the problem has been solved in its premises.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-24-2007).]

I have faith that creationism is bull shit.

I used to find it unacceptable that so many people require the assistance of an invisible man to deal with situations they are responsible for creating.

now I find it unacceptable that so many people think they can disprove something's existance simply by saying "neither of us has seen it", therefore it cannot be.

I'm christian. for those of you dumb enough to ignore me because of that, by all means go ahead, I'll do the same to you. but we're probably in the same boat. I hate films like the passion and the left behind abominations.

but I still believe this shit. why? because I've figured something out. the image of God that we're made in isn't physical. it's spiritual. it's the knowledge of right and wrong that all people have. if you ask anybody if they should kill you or rape you or your girlfriend or lie to you or kill you, they know the answer, even if some of the dipshit teenagers in the states think it's cool to answer this kind of question wrong. how is it that every culture knows this, despite lingustic, physical, social, and philisophical barriers? simple. thats how you know God. how do you prove any of this stuff? you don't. and you don't prove God either. you just know him. THIS is what faith is about.

oh, and for all the bible-bashing twerps, the bible is not God. you don't believe in God because of the bible. you can only believe the bible if you believe God. got that?

let the flaming begin by the angst-ridden teenage athiests.

^^^ So what if an upstanding Hindu didn't believe in the Bible? He or she would have all the good moral qualities that most cultures agree on, he or she has had spiritual experiences, but do they share the same knowledge as you? If so, that's great. If not, why should certain organized religions label other religious sects as being seperate from knowing God?

By the way, you sound particularly angsty in your post. It's generally not a good idea to display a hostile attitude to assert one's opinion if you fear reprisal due to your opinion, because it gives the wrong impression. It's the kind of problem that brings about clashes like the upheavals in Denmark about the prophet Mohammed cartoons, where protest banners saying "Death to all who dishonor Islam" were displayed. Displaying angst in religion, even amongst religions sharing much of the same knowledge and tradition, doesn't promote positive spirituality. I think you're imagining potential conflict when there is none. For any truly religious person, victimhood in the face of even true outright persecution is not promoted, but rather the love of one's enemies as teachers.

*looks up from his pondering*

It's important not to confuse faith with gambling or chance, it's different from that.

If you could bring everything down into a percentage, as in- reduce all things in the universe to their basic form (that they are things) and apply that percentage as a chance of whether or not something created all these things, i think it would come out somewhere like 50%.

So, we have a 50% chance that god/ultimate being doesn't exist, and a 50% chance that god/ultimate being does exist.

From a gamblers p.o.v, it would be wise to cut your losses and fold, thereby providing you with the knowledge that you cannot be proven wrong (in this lifetime).

From a faithful point of view, 'chance' doesn't even come into it - God/ultimate being exists, and everything we see, do or feel is a result of his magnificence.

Religion provides the explanation behind the cause, Science only provides the explanation of how the cause has an effect.

To further elaborate - Everything in the universe (to our knowledge) is made from energy, and this energy cannot be destroyed, merely transformed/transported.

But where did this energy come from?

The Big bang theory?

It's a semi-logical explanation, we don't actually know it happened, that's why it's a theory.

Energy, like all things, is merely a thing, but one could say it was the building block for everything else.

I suppose if we found a 'pure' form of energy - like for example a perpetual lightning strike (one that constantly struck in exactly the same place) and analysed it with every bit of science we have, i doubt we would find anything other than that it was a source of energy.

We are but ants in the grand scheme of things, and those creatures who do possess the intellect to truly understand the universe would know this as well.

quote:Originally posted by Totyai:

but I still believe this shit. why? because I've figured something out. the image of God that we're made in isn't physical. it's spiritual. it's the knowledge of right and wrong that all people have.

Sounds like the "knowledge of good and evil"? isn't that what got Adam and Eve into trouble?

I agree with the divine as spirit or energy rather than matter, an "incorporeal being", however; I cognise that Being as Love, that is: Love that is forgiving, nurturing, supportive, patient and kind, a state of being, a view of life, and those living it, that sees things as they really are in the correct context; not a judging and condemning god/spirit that requires a "knowledge of right/good and wrong/evil".

IMHO this is the meaning of the metaphor of Genesis that we create our own lives, our own god thru eating from the metaphorical 'tree of life' where one feasts on life with a passion and a joy that will never die. I am a fractal of existence, a being composed of energy that has always been and will always be, an indivisible particle of an infinite existence that exists simply because it must, there can be no 'nothing', nothing cannot be said to exist, therefore we exist. Being cannot come from non-being, and neither can being become non-being; existence cannot come from non-existence, nothing cames from nothing, neither can the existence of which I am an idivisible part become non-existence! In this state of being one's only motivations are to enhance life, to promote it, to live. Choosing the knowledge of good and evil leads one into a judgmental, condemning frame of mind - wherein await the demons of wrath, vengance, and death.

Choose life! In the tree of life mind there is only good. In truth all things are simply good as in: good for life; or not good. One will either be strong with life or not strong. There is no wrong, no evil, this is the original sin/error, imagining that there is anything about life that is not good. Life is good! It's all good! Accept what is! Who am I? am I this body? which part of it? Is it all me? What if part was taken away say a leg, would I be less of me? What if a half was taken, which half would be me? If I were to search my body for that intrinsic particle that is uniquely me what would I find?

Are we, in fact a flow of energy? e = mc2. The matter we are composed of is in a constant state of flux such that it's composition varies greatly from one moment to the next, and over years, over a lifetime it changes completely several times. If i am my body which body am I? Examine your body at the quantum level what do you find? Are there some very small particles of which you are made? Is it the sum of these particles that is You? Or is the science good in observing there is no fundamental particle, that all is composed of one unified field of energy?

Are there any gaps in this energy? Is there perhaps a space of nothing in between? Or are "All One, and One is All". Is my existence as a part of this One All able to become non-existence, nothing? Is there a gap between me and what we call God? If one is directly connected to that which we call God, what is one? Who am I? Who are you?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Mmmmm...apples are good! I love learning!

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Ahahahaha. You can't justify inductive logic by using examples where inductive logic has worked and then asserting that it will work in the future, because this is justifying induction using induction. Can't you see that this is a circular argument?

Where do you get Ahahahaha from? I didn't make a circular argument here. Induction works. We would not have gotten this far in Science if it doesn't. The fact that we can do all of the things we do successfully is proof that induction works.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

This uses inductive reasoning in at least two ways.

1. It assumes that our evidence on the nature of melanin production will apply in the future.

So what? The fact that we have certain laws of science that have been consistent is proof that induction works. Whether or not apples start falling upward tomorrow is irrelevant. There is enough evidence to suggest they won't.

And actually, what we have learned about melanin production has nothing to do with what might change in the future. We know how melanin production works up until this point and that so far, the scientific laws have been extremely consistent.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

2. It assumes that because we have explained how melanin is produced in some occasions we can assert that this is how people everywhere get a tan.

No, it doesn't. Proving that the sun causes tanning does not assert that this is the only way to get a tan. You'd make a horrible scientist.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Repeatedly denying that the problem of induction exists is not going to make it go away, no matter how hard you try.

The 'problem of induction' isn't a problem. It's merely a title for philosophical issue. There is no problem with induction in science or in every day living.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

What you need is to demonstrate WHY this evidence entails the conclusions you are making.

Huh?

* When using induction, we modify our expectations of the future by noting how we have been wrong in the past. Thus, induction is not circular but regressive or hierarchical: induction converges on good solutions.

* To induce facts from the past is what we mean when we talk about "reason". It's meaningless to discuss whether we should "reasonably" trust induction: induction is what reason is all about.

The Problem of Induction is fundamentally about 'ideas', and whether or not they are rational. Aristotle established the concept of inductive reasoning, which is really a misnomer, and is one cause for the misunderstanding of the nature of inductive processes.

Concepts are formed by particular mental methods of behaviour. Concept formation is the basic process of forming all ideas, or identifying symbolic representations that have universal applicability.

The discovery of concepts that have universal applicability is not, therefore, a rational process per se. Validating that the concepts are universals, however, is rational, as deduction from concepts is used in the process of scientific validation. One can assert a universal (an inductive concept) by simply asserting a broad spatial or temporal scope of a simple descriptive concept, such as 'this dog has four legs'. By modifying the statement, it is possible to create an inductive concept, which may or may not be valid universally.

If we say 'all dogs have four legs', we have asserted an inductive concept. It remains to be seen whether this concept is valid or not--whether any particular referents of the concept contradict the assertion, for instance, a dog born with three legs. When Karl Popper discussed falsification of theory, he was referring to the identification of evidence which contradicted inductive abstractions.

Returning to the Problem of Induction, asking whether or not it is rational to assert inductive concepts is really too broad a question. The real issue is can we identify some concepts which have been asserted that do have universal validity. If we can, then we should ask more specifically is there a class of concepts which can have universal validity, and what is the nature of that class of concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

quote:* When using induction, we modify our expectations of the future by noting how we have been wrong in the past. Thus, induction is not circular but regressive or hierarchical: induction converges on good solutions.

This still implies the existence of a link between past evidence and future results. A link that has not been justified.

quote:* To induce facts from the past is what we mean when we talk about "reason". It's meaningless to discuss whether we should "reasonably" trust induction: induction is what reason is all about.

This is a bad attempt at using word games to assert that inductive reasoning is somehow self-justified. Calling inductive reasoning "reason" just shifts the burden of doubt to reason itself.

quote:The Problem of Induction is fundamentally about 'ideas', and whether or not they are rational. Aristotle established the concept of inductive reasoning, which is really a misnomer, and is one cause for the misunderstanding of the nature of inductive processes.

Concepts are formed by particular mental methods of behaviour. Concept formation is the basic process of forming all ideas, or identifying symbolic representations that have universal applicability.

The discovery of concepts that have universal applicability is not, therefore, a rational process per se. Validating that the concepts are universals, however, is rational, as deduction from concepts is used in the process of scientific validation. One can assert a universal (an inductive concept) by simply asserting a broad spatial or temporal scope of a simple descriptive concept, such as 'this dog has four legs'. By modifying the statement, it is possible to create an inductive concept, which may or may not be valid universally.

If we say 'all dogs have four legs', we have asserted an inductive concept. It remains to be seen whether this concept is valid or not--whether any particular referents of the concept contradict the assertion, for instance, a dog born with three legs. When Karl Popper discussed falsification of theory, he was referring to the identification of evidence which contradicted inductive abstractions.

Popper felt that inductive reasoning could not be justified, so he was attempting to create a theory of science that does not rely on any use of inductive reasoning whatsoever.

To do this, he proposed that we do not view our current scientific theories as true, but we should act as if they are until they have been falsified. Then they are discarded.

What he did not take into account was that whether a theory has been falsified is itself a theory which can only be taken to be true through induction. Thus he failed in making an induction-free science. Popper's work on the problem of induction is not regarded as a solution by the majority of modern philosophers.

Not to mention that even if he had removed all induction, he must lower himself to asking that we act as if current theories are true, even though the problem of induction seems to point to the un-justifiability of this position. In short, he tried to destroy the problem of induction by bringing faith into science.

quote:Returning to the Problem of Induction, asking whether or not it is rational to assert inductive concepts is really too broad a question. The real issue is can we identify some concepts which have been asserted that do have universal validity. If we can, then we should ask more specifically is there a class of concepts which can have universal validity, and what is the nature of that class of concepts.

This is just a restatement of the problem (not a solution), and I am fine with the altered version. If you can demonstrate that inductively reasoned arguments are (or contain) a class of concepts with universal validity, then I will concede. But you won't be able to, as by induction's very nature, the truth of premises in an induction argument do not guarantee the truth of a conclusion.

note: Due to it's NPOV policy, Wikipedia is not useful for finding definitive arguments on philosophical issues.

quote:

I didn't make a circular argument here. Induction works. We would not have gotten this far in Science if it doesn't. The fact that we can do all of the things we do successfully is proof that induction works.

You've done it again. The evidence of induction working in the past only entails the conclusion that inductive reasoning is justified if we first accept as a premise that it is justified. This is a textbook example of a circular argument.

quote:

So what? The fact that we have certain laws of science that have been consistent is proof that induction works. Whether or not apples start falling upward tomorrow is irrelevant. There is enough evidence to suggest they won't.

Circular argument.

quote:And actually, what we have learned about melanin production has nothing to do with what might change in the future. We know how melanin production works up until this point and that so far, the scientific laws have been extremely consistent.

Your scientific laws are useless if they cannot be applied to predicting the future. But that is inductive reasoning, which remains unjustified.

quote:

No, it doesn't. Proving that the sun causes tanning does not assert that this is the only way to get a tan. You'd make a horrible scientist.

I didn't say every person and I didn't say only, I said everywhere (meaning every location). You don't know that melanin is linked to tanning in any locations other than your laboratory. Unless you use inductive reasoning.

quote:

The 'problem of induction' isn't a problem. It's merely a title for philosophical issue. There is no problem with induction in science

...Right. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Why then do philosophers of science dedicate years of consideration to finding a solution, or if that can't be found, to explaining the repercussions of this lack of solution?

quote:Originally posted by Blades of Hate:

Whenever i argue with somebody at my school, they always say "it isn't about evidence, its about FAITH"

If it's about faith, then attempting to prove the existence of the god in question, or convince others to believe in it, is a great way of demonstrating a lack of faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Why then do philosophers of science dedicate years of consideration to finding a solution, or if that can't be found, to explaining the repercussions of this lack of solution?

That philosophers spend time philosophzing, isn't evidence that there is a real problem with induction. You can also ask, why if repeatable results aren't proved to be reliable, are scientists able to make great leaps in science? If repeatable results weren't reliable, we wouldn't have medicine that cured polio, planes that fly, etc. Looking at where we are now technologically as evidence that we can rely on repeatable results is not circular reasoning.

There is no circular argument with relying upon repeatable results. If one person drops one rock and it falls to the Earth, that is not evidence that it won't fly up the next time. If billions of rocks and billions of objects have been dropped and they all go downward, to conclude that there is something going on more than chance is beyond reasonable. It is beyond reasonable to conclude that there is some sort of attraction between objects and the Earth and that the next rock will drop downward. This is not circular reasoning in any way, shape or form. The laws of physics aren't faith based, they're evidence based. Now I'm sure you'll want to rehash your same old arguments in another post, so go ahead. Maybe you'll be able to convince someone here that it takes faith to expect to not hurl towards the sky when one walks outside his door, but I doubt it. I'm done with you.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fallinghouse:

[b]I'm done with you.

K, first off - no one is 'done with anyone'.

This isn't a fucking competition.

Secondly; Evidence can be fake, if you refute this you are as easily manipulated as any person on this planet.

Thirdly: As Evidence can be fake, one must have faith in that evidence in order to trust it.

Fourthly: Science does not deal in absolutes, this is it's one redeeming aspect which overrides any faith i have in any religion.

Fifthly: Religion is not Science, and Science is not Religion.

A scientist can be a christian, and a Christian can be a Scientist, much the same way as you can have an Atheist Scientist.

@xray: You have not made any new arguments, or adjustments to old ones. I have already demonstrated why those are flawed. So without wasting too much of my time, here is the problem with your arguments summarised in one sentence: You can't use induction to justify induction.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

@xray: You have not made any new arguments, or adjustments to old ones. I have already demonstrated why those are flawed. So without wasting too much of my time, here is the problem with your arguments summarised in one sentence: You can't use induction to justify induction.

He didn't. I'll post here once and I won't go round and round with you.

Let's look at what he said:

a. objects consistently fall downward after many trials.

b. It is reasonable to concluded that more than chance is involved and that there is an attraction between the Earth and objects.

c. Since an attraction between the Earth and objects has been reasonably established, one concludes that the next object to fall will fall downward (because of an established attraction, not induction) unless the scenario is changed.

That's not circular.

quote:a. objects consistently fall downward after many trials.

b. It is reasonable to concluded that more than chance is involved and that there is an attraction between the Earth and objects.

c. Since an attraction between the Earth and objects has been reasonably established, one concludes that the next object to fall will fall downward (because of an established attraction, not induction) unless the scenario is changed.

You forgot part 'd', in which he asserted that induction works. If you don't think he made this conclusion, see the following quotes by him:

"What you were born with is the intellect form conclusions based on EVIDENCE. What you realize is that repeatable results IS evidence that can be relied upon! We KNOW that induction works! We KNOW that staying underwater for an hour will kill you through induction. There's no need to have faith in this. IT IS FUCKING EVIDENCE! When things fall downward over and over and over again, that IS evidence that it will happen again and there is something going on more than dumb luck! When rats die of rat poison over and over and over again, that IS evidence that the poison is indeed poison. No faith is needed to believe "induction works"."

and

"So what? The fact that we have certain laws of science that have been consistent is proof that induction works. Whether or not apples start falling upward tomorrow is irrelevant. There is enough evidence to suggest they won't.

Now, onto why it is circular (even though this should be obvious). Inductive reasoning is where limited observations are used to assert relationships and/or properties.

In his argument, step 'a' gives an example where limited observations have been made. You should realise that limited observations means that the whole range of relevant variables have not been fully tested. ie. these trials did not test results for every possible mass, location, time etc...

Step 'b' asserts a relationship between objects being dropped and them falling to the ground.

So, Steps 'a' and 'b' taken together are:

There is limited observation of dropped objects falling to the ground, therefore there is a relationship between dropping and falling that will cause future dropped objects to fall.

I don't care if you call this 'reasonable' instead of induction, it exactly fits the form of an inductive argument. This is inductive reasoning.

He then asserts that inductive reasoning is valid, failing to notice that he has used inductive reasoning in his argument. This is a circular, so his argument is invalid.

You might say that part 'd' was never concluded, though this would be a strange thing to do considering his testimony. But now, even though this makes his argument no longer circular, it still relies on induction, so unless induction can be justified, then his argument must be assumed to be unsound. This is the reason for him bringing in part 'd'.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-26-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:



Now, onto why it is circular (even though this should be obvious).

It's painfully obvious. Kudos on not freaking out.