Reasonable Faith

[KCfromNC]

Then you're all about what works, and not what's true. If that's the case, the argument can be made that in certain aspects of life religion works best because it gives people the highest likelihood of deep, consistent meaning and group cohesion.

Kinda like Star Wars - people really enjoy that movie and can bond with others who do. Doesn't make it reasonable to believe that you have actual Jedi powers, though, so I don't see how this has anything to do with the thread topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you find out what's true, if not by testing if it works as an explanation?

To follow up / expand on that thought a bit...

If the above is true (being that you find out if an explanation is accurate by testing it against the real world, thus in an empirical way), then do "arguments" by themselves ever lead to truth / knowledge?

Can a mere combination of words lead to knowledge and / or understanding a certain phenomena?

I say: no. And that's why philosphy, as opposed to scientific inquiry and as "practiced" by the likes of apologists who pretend to be speaking "necessarily true things" because they constructed a combination of words in a so-called "deduction" arguments, is pretty useless when trying to comprehend the world / universe.

You don't unravel the mysteries of gravity by "thinking about it". You don't unravel the mysteries of life by "thinking about it". You don't prove the existence of objects or entities by "thinking about it".

You do these things by collecting data, forming hypothesis (which you can call arguments if you want) to attempt to explain the data and then subsequently testing these things against the real world. Either by collecting more data or by conducting experiments.

An argument of which the premises are not informed by verifiable and solid data is useless. It is not reasonable. Just like my argument involving pixies. While logically "valid", it is not reasonable to accept the conclusion. Arguments with unsupported premises are infinite in number.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, it is not the scientist's obligation to falsify all competing theories which are put before him/her. However it wouldn't hurt.

Fine. So why is it a Christian's obligation to falsify every other religion before they can reasonably adopt Christianity?

 

[Received]

I bolded that for you. What about the other points?

That would depend on the specific religion, and I was probably speaking quickly and generally of all religion. But religion is like culture: you can't make sense of it unless you flesh it out particularly. So there's good religion and bad religion. The good religion is pretty much like my religion, man: it doesn't prohibit thinking, respects other religions (see Acts 17), has a mystical, Kierkegaardian edge to it (see Colossians 1, Logos Christology), and really gets the chicks with acoustic rather than classical guitar. You can't help but at least not be influenced in negative or positive ways by this type of religion.

Then there's bad religion. You don't need studies to point out how it breeds violence and tribalism, among other things.

Much like there are good and bad forms of (positive) atheism.

 

[Received]

This to me seems to be just some semantics from philosphy or abstract, conceptual formal logic thingies. I think such things are pretty useless. It's bickering about definitions without actually addressing the point of arguments in the first place: coming up with decent answers to problems.

Here's an argument with unsubstantiated assumptions:

- Pixies make grass grow
- The grass in my garden grows
- Therefor, pixies visit my garden at least sometimes.

Nobody would call this a "reasonable" argument.

It's not, it's textbook logic.

 

[Received]

Do you have a better alternative?
How do you find out what's true if not by testing if it works?

I don't need to find what's better here, because in my view science doesn't contradict religion at all except in places where it plays as science but is really pseudoscience through too much theorizing and too little facts. Advanced QM is all about this.

So for me, I can have all the science in the world and all the good religion in the world. You atheists just like partying till 8.

That was pretty sneaky. You're conflating things here.
I'm talking about "what works" in tems of methodologies to distinguish truth from fiction ("truth" with a small "t").

Not in terms of what makes humans feel a certain way. Not to mention that the empirical data tells us that things like "meaning" and "social engagement" are not at all exclusive to religion. And most certainly not to just one religion.


The main point is my question in the beginning of this post... How do you find out what's true, if not by testing if it works as an explanation?

That's even sneakier.

You're saying it's not about what works per se, but about what works in bringing about truth. But that would be a veracity standard, since it's about truth rather than what works. So even though you mention pragmatism (what works), you're really speaking of veracity. Make up yer mind, young man (where's the fist shaking emoticon when you need it?).

 

[Received]

Nope. We've tested a bunch of different ones and concluded that science is found to be the best at gaining knowledge about realty.

If you want to argue that it is better to pick a method which is known to be inferior, that's cool - but I doubt many people will be convinced.

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Received]

I didn't say it was the objective primary or exclusive method. I said it was currently the most accurate method, and certainly more accurate (whether it can use itself to validate itself or not) than intuition (or "gut feel").

Want an example? Humanity's intuition used to be that the earth was flat.

Using more empirical methods, we determined it isn't.

Most accurate definitely. But most accurate is definitely not tantamount to best by any means. Given especially that the stuff commensurate with science takes up, I don't know, 20% of all possible knowledge; reasoning, say, takes up another 30%, general experience takes up another 40%; and just imagine that the remaining 10% is exclusively from our intuition, and goes with all these philosophical starting points which we can't prove, like uniformity in nature. Would "best" here be the most rigorous, the method that taps into the most possible truth, or the most fundamental to all the others (intuition)? That itself is a philosophical question.

So people who believe false things (assuming God does not exist) are happier than those who do not? So we should all believe anything false that makes us happier?

The problem with the truth is that sometimes it is not as rosey as we'd like. That doesn't doesn't mean that rational people should stop seeking it because ignorance is bliss.

And before you go arguing that anyone else's personal false beliefs can't hurt me, tell that to the families of those killed in 9/11.

Except that people are inclined not to believe things that they know aren't true; i.e., knowingly accepting a falsehood makes a person unhappy.

And yeah, 9-11 had terrible political motivations based in, among other things, our preferential treatment of Israel over the Palestenians, and us occupying certain Arab countries we had no right occupying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't need to find what's better here, because in my view science doesn't contradict religion at all except in places where it plays as science but is really pseudoscience through too much theorizing and too little facts

You are again changing what we are talking about.
The thread is about "reasonable faith". I said that arguments that use unsupported premises are infinite in number and are never reasonable. You claimed that an argument with completely unsupported premises (baseless assumptions) are still reasonable.

I maintain that they aren't. The point of an argument is to get to a decent answer for some problem or question. The point of an argument is to become wiser, not to "just believe" something.

So I ask again: how do you find out what's true if not buy testing if it works as an explanation??

Advanced QM is all about this.

Quantum mechanics is pseudoscience???

So for me, I can have all the science in the world and all the good religion in the world. You atheists just like partying till 8.

Again talking around the point being made.

How do you assess the truth / accuracy of an argument if not through testing it in the real world to see if it holds up? How do you assess the truth / accuracy of the conclusion if you can not support the premises?

Do you agree that we can make up any number of arguments where the conclusion logically follows from the unsupported premises while being completely and utterly wrong anyway?

That's even sneakier.

You're saying it's not about what works per se, but about what works in bringing about truth.

We were talking about a methodology to come up with explanations. We were not talking about phenomena and the effect they produce.

I was talking about "premises supported by empirical data as the best method we currently have". About what works to come up with explanations that make sense and are usefull. You then started talking about the psychological effect of certain beliefs.

Those are 2 completely different things.

But that would be a veracity standard, since it's about truth rather than what works

Ow for crying out loud...
I repeat my question: how do you find out what is true without testing it against reality?

So even though you mention pragmatism (what works), you're really speaking of veracity. Make up yer mind, young man (where's the fist shaking emoticon when you need it?).

No. You are again confusing yourself (or attempting to confuse me or the audience) by trying to bicker again about definitions and philosophical / formal logic jargon. All that stuff is irrelevant to practical application of reason and argumentation.

What I'm saying is that you can not know what is true without testing it against reality. And if your argument is actually true, it will work when you test your argument against reality.

The "working" part is the evidence of the truth of the argument.
The "not working" part is the evidence against the truth of the argument.

I'm saying that you can't obtain (or know) one without doing the other.

If you think you can, you are welcome to answer my question, which I will repeat a 5th time for your convenience:

How do you find out what is true without testing it against reality?

And to repeat it once more: if you test it against reality and your test is successfull, then your argument/explanation works

 

[Received]

Don't use all the bolds on the Interwebs now. Some folks need it for work and stuff.

 

[Received]

You are again changing what we are talking about.
The thread is about "reasonable faith". I said that arguments that use unsupported premises are infinite in number and are never reasonable. You claimed that an argument with completely unsupported premises (baseless assumptions) are still reasonable.

I maintain that they aren't. The point of an argument is to get to a decent answer for some problem or question. The point of an argument is to become wiser, not to "just believe" something.

So I ask again: how do you find out what's true if not buy testing if it works as an explanation??

I maintain the classic basic logical distinction between soundness and validity. You're claiming reasonableness is tantamount to soundness, but they aren't. Why? Because that's how logic works! And the point of an argument isn't to become wiser, but to reason to a valid conclusion when necessary and a sound one when possible.

And you find out what's true outside of testability by reasoning a priori, a posteriori (but not from science), from intuition, and induction. Science is only the most rigorous and smallest sphere of all forms of knowledge. If you claim it's the only one, you negate yourself given that science can't prove itself.

Quantum mechanics is pseudoscience???

Not all of it, and pseudoscience might have been putting it too harshly. But you get to the point (I'm thinking of a quibble between Alan Guth and Neil Turok) where your theories about the universe don't involve any predictability, and therefore become philosophy rather than science (you need predictability for science), but because it's really philosophy cloaking itself as science, it's not science at all, but rather pseudoscience.

No. You are again confusing yourself (or attempting to confuse me or the audience) by trying to bicker again about definitions and philosophical / formal logic jargon. All that stuff is irrelevant to practical application of reason and argumentation.

Oh, go jump in the irrelevant point lake.

What I'm saying is that you can not know what is true without testing it against reality. And if your argument is actually true, it will work when you test your argument against reality.

So you definitely can't tell if "you can't know what's true without testing it against reality" is true, given that you can't test it against reality. No, really.

 

[Gladius]

Most accurate definitely. But most accurate is definitely not tantamount to best by any means. Given especially that the stuff commensurate with science takes up, I don't know, 20% of all possible knowledge; reasoning, say, takes up another 30%, general experience takes up another 40%; and just imagine that the remaining 10% is exclusively from our intuition, and goes with all these philosophical starting points which we can't prove, like uniformity in nature. Would "best" here be the most rigorous, the method that taps into the most possible truth, or the most fundamental to all the others (intuition)? That itself is a philosophical question.

I think your estimated percentages for both science and reason (I see little difference between those two anyway) are way off, and what in the world is "general experience" and what makes it different to science/reason?

You left off accidental discovery, which would be mathematically equivalent to your "intuition" because there is no more likelihood that you can "intuit" the truth than guess it.

You can put foward all kinds of ways you might decide what it true, but to convince humankind you are going to need a lot more than personal intuition.

Except that people are inclined not to believe things that they know aren't true; i.e., knowingly accepting a falsehood makes a person unhappy.

Where did I say they would knowingly believe something false? If you knew it was false, you actually couldn't believe it to be true by definition, unless you had a split personality.

And yeah, 9-11 had terrible political motivations based in, among other things, our preferential treatment of Israel over the Palestenians, and us occupying certain Arab countries we had no right occupying.

No, people who believed they would go to heaven a martyr for their God and send thousands of infidels to hell was why those theists suicided via commercial aircraft, and why they continue to do so all over the world.

 

[lesliedellow]

You left off accidental discovery, which would be mathematically equivalent to your "intuition" because there is no more likelihood that you can "intuit" the truth than guess it.

Schrodinger managed to intuit his wave equation. The reasoning by which you can come by that equation is loose to say the least, and there is no reason in heaven why it should have produced anything useful, but it did.

 

[Received]

I think your estimated percentages for both science and reason (I see little difference between those two anyway) are way off, and what in the world is "general experience" and what makes it different to science/reason?

Don't take those percentages literally; they were meant to drive home the point of different levels of validity and use in terms of aspects of knowledge. And general experience is science minus predictability and generalization. Science is based on the validity of experience, which is why it's called an empirical method. And, of course, I'd argue that experience is validated by intuition.

You left off accidental discovery, which would be mathematically equivalent to your "intuition" because there is no more likelihood that you can "intuit" the truth than guess it.

You can put foward all kinds of ways you might decide what it true, but to convince humankind you are going to need a lot more than personal intuition.

The big question is who says the default (that science is more fundamental) is right? I'm also yet to hear a convincing argument from this. To me, intuition is the basis of absolutely everything, because it's the knowing without reasoning that is logically required for any system to be validated as a system. Take science: it can prove lots of things with great validity and reliability, but can it prove itself? Nope, therefore what validates it must be beyond itself. What is beyond it in this sense? Those philosophical presuppositions and axioms on which science are based: induction, generalization, the existence of an outer world, causality, etc. All of these very basic concepts are by definition intuitively driven, given that we can't prove them at all except by saying, "but they're real!" Which would be begging the question. How do we know they're real? And the only answer here is: intinctive beliefs, as Russell called them, or intuition as I call them. Same deal, same point.

I articulated all this in some detail on this thread.

• Science is the smallest sphere, but provides probably the most certainty with what we can know about things.
• Outside that is reason, which can work with conclusions from science, but also from experiences and intuitions (a priori truth).
• Outside that is experience, which stands for what it basically says (a posteriori truth).
• Outside that is intuition, which to me is the same as axiomatic or self-evident truths. What Bertrand Russell called "instinctive beliefs".

This doesn't at all mean that intuition is king, and we should just blindly use it in all situations. We should use it nakedly only when other standards don't apply, e.g., reason or science; otherwise we should use those standards, but keeping in mind that they're totally intuitively mediated. Intuition alone when necessary, other standards when possible.

Where did I say they would knowingly believe something false? If you knew it was false, you actually couldn't believe it to be true by definition, unless you had a split personality.

Well, it's not that extreme. People believe on at least a preconscious level stuff they know to be false all the time. This is what allows for cognitive dissonance. To me, this is because the emotional need allowed by their belief outweighs their desire to know the truth at all costs.

No, people who believed they would go to heaven a martyr for their God and send thousands of infidels to hell was why those theists suicided via commercial aircraft, and why they continue to do so all over the world.

I disagree strongly, but we're also using all-or-nothing thinking to some degree. We live in a multivariate world, and in this case the reasons for 9-11 are many: including our blind support for Israel over the Palestinians, our occupation of an Arab land that they didn't rightly want, among others (and notice that none of those stated involve religious motivations). But sure, I can concede that a little influence was based on religion, but it's a big stretch to say that Islam itself promotes this (as opposed to their skewed interpretation to fit their ideological desires).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I maintain the classic basic logical distinction between soundness and validity. You're claiming reasonableness is tantamount to soundness, but they aren't. Why? Because that's how logic works! And the point of an argument isn't to become wiser, but to reason to a valid conclusion when necessary and a sound one when possible.

Yes, yes. But please, remember the context of the subject in which we started this exchange.

Again I find myself asking you: how can the conclusion of an argument that uses unjustified / unsupported premises ever result in a "reasonable" conclusion?

And you find out what's true outside of testability by reasoning a priori, a posteriori (but not from science), from intuition, and induction.

Give me one example. Show me an argument with unsupported premises that results in a "true" conclusion.
Don't forget to explain how you know the conclusion is true.

Science is only the most rigorous and smallest sphere of all forms of knowledge. If you claim it's the only one, you negate yourself given that science can't prove itself.

The merrits of the scientific method is in its results.
Science proves its usefullness by its solid track record in answering questions. I know of no other method that even only comes close to this.

You keep claiming that these methods exist, but I haven't seen them.

So you definitely can't tell if "you can't know what's true without testing it against reality" is true, given that you can't test it against reality. No, really.

What makes you think that? Off course I can test it.

All it takes is looking at claims / arguments that employ unsupported and / or untestable premises and comparing them with claims / arguments that employ support and / or testable premises and see which one results in more accurate knowledge.

FYI: the arguments with supported / testable premises are on a winning streak as far as I can see.

 

[Received]

Yes, yes. But please, remember the context of the subject in which we started this exchange.

Again I find myself asking you: how can the conclusion of an argument that uses unjustified / unsupported premises ever result in a "reasonable" conclusion?

Because something unsupported isn't by logical definition unjustified! Again, that's what premises are! What part of this ain't chu gettin', man?

Give me one example. Show me an argument with unsupported premises that results in a "true" conclusion.
Don't forget to explain how you know the conclusion is true.

You're shifting the goal posts to support your own exclusive epistemology, which isn't at all how logic works. For one, you're equating justified with supported (true) premises, and then emphasizing how you "know" the conclusion is true, presumably pointing to a rigorous epistemological criterion. A conclusion follows from its premises if it's valid; it doesn't if it's invalid. A conclusion that has true premises and that follow validly is sound. So they told me in logic 101.

The merrits of the scientific method is in its results.
Science proves its usefullness by its solid track record in answering questions. I know of no other method that even only comes close to this.

You keep claiming that these methods exist, but I haven't seen them.

You're shifting goal posts again, this time from veracity to pragmatism. You haven't seen the other methods because you're too insistent on "only sound premises and conclusions at all costs!" You know that any sound conclusion is by definition based on either a priori or a posteriori reasoning, right? And neither of these, and not necessarily the latter, are science, right? And that there was a form of knowing things that existed before science, and still exists? And that science itself is based on vague a priori philosophical assumptions which we accept as sound but can't prove, right?

Right?

What makes you think that? Off course I can test it.

All it takes is looking at claims / arguments that employ unsupported and / or untestable premises and comparing them with claims / arguments that employ support and / or testable premises and see which one results in more accurate knowledge.

FYI: the arguments with supported / testable premises are on a winning streak as far as I can see.

That much is obvious. My point: you can't test science using its own method, since science itself doesn't fulfill its own criteria for determining if something is true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because something unsupported isn't by logical definition unjustified! Again, that's what premises are! What part of this ain't chu gettin', man?

For the gazillionth time, I'm not talking about the theoretical constructs of formal arguments. I'm talking about when arguments are reasonable.

You keep throwing around definitions and jargon, but not once have you addressed my question: how is an argument with unsupported / untested / untestable premises reasonable?

Is this a reasonable argument:
- if pixies did not exist, the sun wouldn't shine
- the sun shines
- therefor, pixies exist

?

You're shifting the goal posts to support your own exclusive epistemology, which isn't at all how logic works.

Not at all...
You specifically said that arguments with unsupported / untestable premises can lead to true conclusions. I'm just asking for an example.

For one, you're equating justified with supported (true) premises, and then emphasizing how you "know" the conclusion is true, presumably pointing to a rigorous epistemological criterion. A conclusion follows from its premises if it's valid; it doesn't if it's invalid. A conclusion that has true premises and that follow validly is sound. So they told me in logic 101.

How do you know if your premises are true?

If not by testing / supporting them?

You're shifting goal posts again, this time from veracity to pragmatism. You haven't seen the other methods because you're too insistent on "only sound premises and conclusions at all costs!"

Errrr... duh?
How is this a shifting of goal post, as that was my position from the very start? It was you who objected to that. Go back and read our exchange from the beginning.

And that there was a form of knowing things that existed before science, and still exists?

I believe I asked you for an example.

And that science itself is based on vague a priori philosophical assumptions which we accept as sound but can't prove, right?

You mean:
- the universe exists
- you can learn something about the universe
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models with no predictive capabilities

You mean those 3 basal assumptions?

That much is obvious. My point: you can't test science using its own method, since science itself doesn't fulfill its own criteria for determining if something is true.

Science is a method of inquiry. And its merrits are shown in the results of using it.

 

[Received]

For the gazillionth time, I'm not talking about the theoretical constructs of formal arguments. I'm talking about when arguments are reasonable.

You keep throwing around definitions and jargon, but not once have you addressed my question: how is an argument with unsupported / untested / untestable premises reasonable?

Is this a reasonable argument:
- if pixies did not exist, the sun wouldn't shine
- the sun shines
- therefor, pixies exist

?

1) Shush about "definitions and jargon" like they're some copout (and if you're claiming they are, that's an argument you haven't made).

2) For the gazzilionth-and-first time, if by "reasonable" you mean only sound premises to conclusions, that's a biased use of the term.

3) Yes, that's a reasonable argument. The conclusion follows from the premises. The argument obviously isn't true, though. The point here is that rationality is not tantamount to truth. ETA: actually, I think the reasoning is invalid; if you had said in the second premise, "pixies don't exist," therefore (conclusion) the sun doesn't shine, that would be valid but unsound (as we discussed).

How do you know if your premises are true?

If not by testing / supporting them?

Observation, experience, intuition, induction, conclusions from previous a priori premises, ditto with a posteriori but not necessarily science-related.

Errrr... duh?
How is this a shifting of goal post, as that was my position from the very start? It was you who objected to that. Go back and read our exchange from the beginning.

I don't need to, because you keep talking about "reasonable" here, which has a specific meaning that you keep refusing to let through the front door.

I believe I asked you for an example.

I really shouldn't have to provide examples for people who should know what the stuff of intuition, induction, a priori reasoning, etc. are. Still want an example?

You mean:
- the universe exists
- you can learn something about the universe
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models with no predictive capabilities

You mean those 3 basal assumptions?

Again you're sneaking in pragmatism (third point) with veracity, you sneaky devil you. "The universe exists" presupposes knowing how the universe exists, and saying "it just does!" begs the question. What is the mechanism that allows us to ascertain that the universe exists, other people exist, uniformity in nature exists, induction is valid, and other assumptions underlying science which you haven't included? Saying, "because they work!" is like saying leprechauns exist because they "work" at giving me lucky charms.

Science is a method of inquiry. And its merrits are shown in the results of using it.

Definitely, but that's shifting goal posts from truth to pragmatism.

 

[golgotha61]

No, it is not the scientist's obligation to falsify all competing theories which are put before him/her. However it wouldn't hurt.

It is their professional obligation to honestly consider peer claims that his theory is false.

That my friend is the scientific method.

According to Karl Popper, science cannot verify theories, it can merely falsify them (Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery).