More Things to consider

[xianghua]

Especially when you get to argue from a position of sheer ignorance on the topic and while using imaginary data.

like yours?

 

[SkyWriting]

Here's an exercise for you.

Consider the following two instances of "faith":
1. I have faith that this boeing 747 will get me safely to my destination
2. I have faith that Allah will reward me with 70 virgins if I die as a martyr fighting for the cause of Islam

Please explain the difference between these two types of "faith".
Are both equally rational?
Are both equally justified?
Are both the same type of faith?

A large number of people are convinced that #1 is true and they will assure you they are correct.
The same with #2.
Both are easy to test.
But a successful test does not prove either to be true.

 

[Speedwell]

A large number of people are convinced that #1 is true and they will assure you they are correct.
The same with #2.
Both are easy to test.

In the case of #1, people who believe that the Boeing 747 is generally reliable have their own experience and the experience of many other people they know of to point to as the basis of their belief. That's the way the proposition is "tested."

In the case of #2, people who believe in the 70 virgins have never seen them nor do they know anyone else who has. All they can point to as the basis of belief is that they read about it in a magic book which always tells the absolute truth. How do you test that?

 

[klutedavid]

Your last sentence, is in direct contradiction with your first sentence.

I rely on revelation rather than observable evidence, hence from my perspective there is no contradiction. Nevertheless, we cannot really know with any certainty, if an observed event is a natural event.

 

[HitchSlap]

I rely on revelation ...

As long as this revelation comports with reality, then it's not quite a "revelation," is it?

 

[klutedavid]

As long as this revelation comports with reality, then it's not quite a "revelation," is it?

How do you define reality?

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you define reality?

Any thing that exists.

 

[klutedavid]

Any thing that exists.

Is the existence of something reliant on your observation of it's existence?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is the existence of something reliant on your observation of it's existence?

I make three basal assumptions.

Reality exists.
We can know some things about reality.
Falsifiable tests with predictive capabilities best describe reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

probably because it has a vestigial flipper (we found a dolphin with extra pair of flippers). but this isnt evidence for a common descent, just for degeneration. see how easy it is to explain biology without evolution?

Except populations do not just continuously degrade. Consider bacterial populations, ones for which thousands of generations can occur within a year: if they were just continuously getting worse and worse at survival and more wasteful with their genetic code as it built up vestigial genes, we'd easily be able to observe that... if organisms with such small genomes continuously building up nothing but neutral and malignant mutations could even last such a strain.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello HitchSlap.

Here we go.

I make three basal assumptions.

You actually make many more assumptions but these will do for now.

Reality exists.

Hard to argue with that assumption, though our perception of reality is relative and temporal. We observe so little, being limited by our sensory perception.

We can know some things about reality.

Yes, but in a limited way.

Falsifiable tests with predictive capabilities best describe reality.

Not sure whether I would agree with this.

Think of weather events, could you accurately predict the weather a year from now, in a given location?

Then again, can you accurately predict the location of the next large earthquake, one above seven on the Richter scale?

What are you referring to when you use the phrase, 'predictive capabilities'.

 

[HitchSlap]

What are you referring to when you use the phrase, 'predictive capabilities'.

Theories that can be used to make predictions add to our body of knowledge and understanding. e.g. the theory of relativity is used every day by scientists to better our understanding of the cosmos. I read an article some time ago in Sci Am that talked about how many grad students have gotten their PhD using Einstein's ToR - this is repeatable, original research, all based on Einstein's theory.
The theory of evolution is a theory that makes predictions. e.g., Neil Shubin used the theory to identify the precise geological column that might yield a "fishapod," and was successful.

This is why falsifiability is so important, as it allows for something to be proven false, if it doesn't objectively comport with reality.

 

[klutedavid]

Theories that can be used to make predictions add to our body of knowledge and understanding. e.g. the theory of relativity is used every day by scientists to better our understanding of the cosmos. I read an article some time ago in Sci Am that talked about how many grad students have gotten their PhD using Einstein's ToR - this is repeatable, original research, all based on Einstein's theory.
The theory of evolution is a theory that makes predictions. e.g., Neil Shubin used the theory to identify the precise geological column that might yield a "fishapod," and was successful.

This is why falsifiability is so important, as it allows for something to be proven false, if it doesn't objectively comport with reality.

A potentially divisive theory suggests Einstein may have been wrong to say the speed of light is a constant, and the claims could soon be tested with a new generation of space telescopes.

Since it was first proposed more than 100 years ago, Einstein’s theory of general relativity has been one of the fundamental theories upon which our understanding of the Universe is built. His groundbreaking theory relies on the notion that the speed of light is always a constant value – but a controversial new theory has been proposed that has the potential to turn this idea on its head.

Not only does the paper say Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, it also describes - for the first time - how can this notion can be tested in the future. Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada built the theory on a question about the very early Universe, which has plagued cosmologists for centuries. In terms of the density of stars and galaxies, the Universe looks generally consistent over huge distances, which means light must have travelled far enough to reach every corner – otherwise there would be dense patches and light patches. This has previously been explained by a theory called inflation, that says at the very start of the Universe there was a period of incredibly rapid growth. The new theory does away with inflation. "It asserts that the Big Bang was hot and as you go back in time, at some high temperature (around 10^28 C), the light speed rapidly goes to infinity"...(wired.co.uk)

 

[DogmaHunter]

like yours?

No, I'm not the one refering to non-existing animals to argue against a strawman version of an established scientific theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A large number of people are convinced that #1 is true and they will assure you they are correct.
The same with #2.
Both are easy to test.
But a successful test does not prove either to be true.

You forgot to actually answer the questions.
Here they are again:

Are both equally rational?
Are both equally justified?
Are both the same type of faith?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I rely on revelation rather than observable evidence, hence from my perspective there is no contradiction.

Off course there is, since you ASSUME that this "revelation", which according to your very own acknowledgement is not supported by observable evidence, is actually accurate.

Nevertheless, we cannot really know with any certainty, if an observed event is a natural event.

Sure. But why would you assume otherwise, while lacking actual evidence or data to even suggest such?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hard to argue with that assumption, though our perception of reality is relative and temporal. We observe so little, being limited by our sensory perception.

Which is why we build tools to do the "percepting" for us, so that we don't have to rely on our sense which are known to be very prone to failure, or which are in some cases simply not accurate enough.

Not sure whether I would agree with this.

Off course you don't. Such an admission would kind of cloud your unfalsifiable and untestable religious beliefs.

Think of weather events, could you accurately predict the weather a year from now, in a given location?

No. Not that that forms any kind of problem for the assumption being discussed though....

Then again, can you accurately predict the location of the next large earthquake, one above seven on the Richter scale?

No. Not that that forms any kind of problem for the assumption being discussed though...

(having said that, our falsifiable model with predictive capabilities concerning plate tectonics, most certainly can inform you which regions are most likely to experience such an earthquake)

What are you referring to when you use the phrase, 'predictive capabilities'.

General explanatory power of any given model of reality.

"if such and such is the case, then we should see/observe this and this under circumstance X".

 

[DogmaHunter]

A potentially divisive theory suggests Einstein may have been wrong to say the speed of light is a constant, and the claims could soon be tested with a new generation of space telescopes.

Since it was first proposed more than 100 years ago, Einstein’s theory of general relativity has been one of the fundamental theories upon which our understanding of the Universe is built. His groundbreaking theory relies on the notion that the speed of light is always a constant value – but a controversial new theory has been proposed that has the potential to turn this idea on its head.

Not only does the paper say Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, it also describes - for the first time - how can this notion can be tested in the future. Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada built the theory on a question about the very early Universe, which has plagued cosmologists for centuries. In terms of the density of stars and galaxies, the Universe looks generally consistent over huge distances, which means light must have travelled far enough to reach every corner – otherwise there would be dense patches and light patches. This has previously been explained by a theory called inflation, that says at the very start of the Universe there was a period of incredibly rapid growth. The new theory does away with inflation. "It asserts that the Big Bang was hot and as you go back in time, at some high temperature (around 10^28 C), the light speed rapidly goes to infinity"...(wired.co.uk)

Do you also have a point here that relates to Hitch's post or........?

 

[bhsmte]

I rely on revelation rather than observable evidence, hence from my perspective there is no contradiction. Nevertheless, we cannot really know with any certainty, if an observed event is a natural event.

How do you know with certainty, that your personal revelation is accurate?