Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think either are necessarily the best way. I think the best way is to honestly question reality (including yourself) with the intent of figuring out the truth.
I don't think your use of the term "irrational" is fair here. A "better understanding of reality", even in the absence of this "definitive truth" you refer to, is no small thing. Our lives have been massively improved through the fruits of science. So to describe science as "irrational" in this context is deeply misleading.
I am not sure that this kind of "definitive truth" you refer to is even possible to attain given our limited minds and the way the universe is structured. Why is it so important to you that truth be "definitive"?
What makes a truth "definitive"?
Can you imagine there being an ultimate truth to why we exist in this reality we all perceive? That is the truth I'm referring to.
I agree that what is a fact can be equal to what is true. However, I'm saying that all facts and all true things should point to an ultimate truth and that we humans are responsible to either accept that truth or not.
If all facts and all true things do not point to an ultimate truth, then what's the point of understanding facts and true things?
I disagree. I believe that most people use the word "science" to denote "scientific method" which is a way to acquire knowledge through making predictions about the real world and then performing experiments or gathering data (from the "real" world, of course) to compare against the hypothesis. An important qualification: For one to be 'doing science', it must be at least possible that the observations will refute the hypothesis. It is not doing science to assert that there exist other universes that are entirely disconnected from ours to the extent that no information or influences can be exchanged between these universes. This is not to say that it's not true that there are such other universes, it is simply to say that it is not a matter that can be settled through the scientific method. It may be true, it may not be true.Science and religion are both based on what each individual believes based on what they've observed and shared with others.
I don't think either are necessarily the best way. I think the best way is to honestly question reality (including yourself) with the intent of figuring out the truth.
What is it (exactly) about the scientific method, that you feel does not make it the most reliable method to question reality?
Perhaps of more relevance to this thread consider two people, A and B, who see a "vision" of a dead relative. Person A who comes to this experience believing in ghost may well think he is really seeing that person. Person B, a hardcore "nobody here but us atoms" kind of guy, will conclude this is an hallucination and the ghost is not "real" in the "it's really out there in the world" kind of way. Two different "perspectives" on the same raw information.
It is in this sense that I claim no one can claim direct (objective) knowledge of the world - everything we know is generated by the action of a complex set of presumed beliefs about the world as applied to the raw sense data that enters our bodies.
If you believe neither the scientific method, or personal religious experiences are not the best way to determine what reality is most likely to be true, what method do you use?
That fact that the scientific method excludes the desire for truth in favor of the desire to question reality and form hypothesis. When the reason to question reality and form hypothesis should be to figure out the truth.
I already answered this question in my previous comment.
Well it seems that for you, "X" is definitively true if you believe X is undeniable. Fair enough, but what you are describing is merely a measure of perceived certainty. There are probably people who really do believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and they may well be as certain about this as you are about your 'definitive beliefs'. I do not deny that (1) people can feel certain about things; (2) the hypothesis about which they are certain may be "objectively" true. But if we are talking about an "inner feeling of certainty", I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about such claims, but not to the point of insisting that what the person is certain about cannot be true.A truth can become definitive on an individual basis. For example; many Christians have a spiritual experience that makes the truth of Jesus obvious and undeniable. I am one of those Christians.
Hmmm. I politely suggest that this choice of example, and the way you frame it, suggest that you indeed may have a distorted view on the nature of scientific inquiry and the robustness of the scientific method. For example, it is clearly profoundly misleading, at best, to suggest that scientist "assume" dinosaurs lived millions of year ago.A scientist might discover evidence that points to dinosaurs only being thousands of years old. This evidence might make it definitely true that they should question the actual age of dinosaurs and not just assume they are millions of years old because other scientists have assumed as much.
I disagree. I believe that most people use the word "science" to denote "scientific method" which is a way to acquire knowledge through making predictions about the real world and then performing experiments or gathering data (from the "real" world, of course) to compare against the hypothesis. An important qualification: For one to be 'doing science', it must be at least possible that the observations will refute the hypothesis. It is not doing science to assert that there exist other universes that are entirely disconnected from ours to the extent that no information or influences can be exchanged between these universes. This is not to say that it's not true that there are such other universes, it is simply to say that it is not a matter that can be settled through the scientific method. It may be true, it may not be true.
Religion, on the other hand is a set of beliefs and / or experiences - it is not, in my opinion, a method for acquiring knowledge. Some religious beliefs are indeed subject to scientific assessment (e.g. if we pray for someone, that person is more likely to get better than if we don't). Others are not such as "Humanity is entrusted by God with responsibility to manage the world". This is a 'religious' belief but it cannot be 'tested' using the principles of the scientific method.
Not really the point. The point is simply that no matter how we have developed the particular interpretive grid of beliefs that we use to interpret data, we all have them.Why does person A believe in ghosts?
What does this have to do with me not seeing things from other people's perspectives?
Well it seems that for you, "X" is definitively true if you believe X is undeniable. Fair enough, but what you are describing is merely a measure of perceived certainty. There are probably people who really do believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and they may well be as certain about this as you are about your 'definitive beliefs'. I do not deny that (1) people can feel certain about things; (2) the hypothesis about which they are certain may be "objectively" true. But if we are talking about an "inner feeling of certainty", I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about such claims, but not to the point of insisting that what the person is certain about cannot be true.
Hmmm. I politely suggest that this choice of example, and the way you frame it, suggest that you indeed may have a distorted view on the nature of scientific inquiry and the robustness of the scientific method. For example, it is clearly profoundly misleading, at best, to suggest that scientist "assume" dinosaurs lived millions of year ago.
My point is whether we use the scientific method or personal honest questioning of reality, we can't get around the fact that we're all subjectively interpreting objective facts.
However, when someone uses the scientific method they're desire isn't necessarily to find truth, but rather they desire to question reality and form a hypothesis, which could lead them to the truth or away from the truth, but if they don't desire the truth then they'll most likely miss it since they're not really looking for it to begin with.
Does that make sense?
Well, this is misleading, I think. While I agree that subjectivity necessarily infects our attempts to understand the world, the scientific method greatly attenuates the distorting effects of such subjectivities.My point is whether we use the scientific method or personal honest questioning of reality, we can't get around the fact that we're all subjectively interpreting objective facts.
Not to me. I see no difference between:However, when someone uses the scientific method they're desire isn't necessarily to find truth, but rather they desire to question reality and form a hypothesis, which could lead them to the truth or away from the truth, but if they don't desire the truth then they'll most likely miss it since they're not really looking for it to begin with.
Does that make sense?
There is evidence that suggests dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How I interpret that evidence is completely up to me.
Search for evidence of young dinosaurs on google and you might be surprised.
Take it all with a grain of salt of course.
Not if you are following the scientific method, which is decidedly a public undertaking.There is evidence that suggests dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How I interpret that evidence is completely up to me.
I am quite sure there is a lot of stuff out there. And lots of people deny man-made climate change.Search for evidence of young dinosaurs on google and you might be surprised.
Did I ever claim you cannot "see things from another persons perspectives? I doubt it, but perhaps I did. All I am saying is that there is no such animal as "pure objectivity" when it comes to each of our interactions with the world.
Well, this is misleading, I think. While I agree that subjectivity necessarily infects our attempts to understand the world, the scientific method greatly attenuates the distorting effects of such subjectivities.
Not to me. I see no difference between:
1. Seeking truth;
2. Forming an hypothesis and then testing it.
I take issue with the implication that scientists are not "seeking truth". I suggest that they are very much in the "truth-seeking" business even if you and the scientists might disagree on (1) the matter of whether one can ever be "certain"; (2) whether it is even meaningful to talk about something called "definitive truth".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?