Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

1

1987

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,254
7,050
Palum_sl said:
Also I take issue with your characterization that no useful knowledge has been passed on without proof coming before, that flies completely in the face of theoretical branches of science and is provably false (eg relativity, standard model, etc. where pieces were proven by other people decades later).
Click to expand...
I was inarticulate then. I wouldnt describe faith as belief in something that you didnt personally prove. I would describe "faith" as something that no one "could" possibly prove. Relativity is a good example. Even if it took decades for the means of testing that hypothesis to be possible. The theory of relativity was at least designed in a way as to be testable eventually.

Religious faith is definitionally not testable....ever. And by design.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,485
73,570
There are immense differences between beliefs that are demonstrable and those that aren't.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Sure.

Astrophysics is mostly faith based. Most of the social sciences are largely faith based. And it's not a dig. I do love me some amateur astrophysics, and the arguments are reasonable and derive from simple concepts. But when people start telling you about the event horizon of a black hole... we're putting an awful lot of faith into things that are not entirely demonstrable. And the social sciences are worse for it. Not that they should be shamed into the dustbin... they are often useful. But they should probably be called the Social Arts. The human psyche and social constructs are both more elaborate things than anything an astrophysicist studies, and the tools that they have to do it with are less reliable.

I think the primary difference is that the scientist is able to say, "This is the truth as best we know for right now" where the zealot will say "This is the truth"

Math and Engineering less so. Even if the engineer says, "God, I hope nothing blows up" right before he turns on the power it's still really not a faith based exercise.

The most basic tenant of of science is, "This is explicable. This can be known." Well, that is an assumption that the truly great scientists put a large amount of faith into holding.
 
W

WHITE PENIS_sl

shitlord
358
1
Iannis_sl said:
Sure.

Astrophysics is mostly faith based. Most of the social sciences are largely faith based. And it's not a dig. I do love me some amateur astrophysics, and the arguments are reasonable and derive from simple concepts. But when people start telling you about the event horizon of a black hole... we're putting an awful lot of faith into things that are not entirely demonstrable. And the social sciences are worse for it. Not that they should be shamed into the dustbin... they are often useful. But they should probably be called the Social Arts. The human psyche and social constructs are both more elaborate things than anything an astrophysicist studies, and the tools that they have to do it with are less reliable.

I think the primary difference is that the scientist is able to say, "This is the truth as best we know for right now" where the zealot will say "This is the truth"

Math and Engineering less so. Even if the engineer says, "God, I hope nothing blows up" right before he turns on the power it's still really not a faith based exercise.

The most basic tenant of of science is, "This is explicable. This can be known." Well, that is an assumption that the truly great scientists put a large amount of faith into holding.
Click to expand...
I think you're using "faith" when you mean to be using "confidence"...

subtle but significant difference
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Iannis_sl said:
Astrophysics is mostly faith based.
Click to expand...
latest
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,473
2,276
I think both religious people and devotees of science are willing to accept scientific results that are clearly demonstrable. For things that aren't, us regular people have no choice but to have faith. Faith in God, the universe, or science or whatever, we all accept a lot of shit without understanding it or seeing it verified and that is fine. You may believe that the peer review system is sound and not corrupt, but there is no possible way that you could know that, or even that actual scientists could know that for sure. There's not a particular reason to think that it is, but assuming that it isn't is an act of faith. There are good reasons to have faith in it despite the fact that it occasionally fails, but don't kid yourself about what you know and what you don't know or you're getting into religious territory.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
BrutulTM_sl said:
I think both religious people and devotees of science are willing to accept scientific results that are clearly demonstrable. For things that aren't, us regular people have no choice but to have faith. Faith in God, the universe, or science or whatever, we all accept a lot of shit without understanding it or seeing it verified and that is fine. You may believe that the peer review system is sound and not corrupt, but there is no possible way that you could know that, or even that actual scientists could know that for sure. There's not a particular reason to think that it is, but assuming that it isn't is an act of faith. There are good reasons to have faith in it despite the fact that it occasionally fails, but don't kid yourself about what you know and what you don't know or you're getting into religious territory.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself Mr. Faith.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
What the fuck is this faith bullshit? Knowing I can't possible know everything (and accepting I know essentially absolutely nothing about our universe and everything within it) and accepting certain aspects such as the acceleration due to gravity on Earth has nothing to due with faith. I know what it is because of countless (on this case) observation and applications of this value, as well as the theory of gravity (and countless applications and observations of this theory).

The fuck is wrong with you people
 
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Between religion and science only one claims to have the perfect, unchanging and ultimate truth about anything.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,473
2,276
ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
What the fuck is this faith bullshit? Knowing I can't possible know everything (and accepting I know essentially absolutely nothing about our universe and everything within it) and accepting certain aspects such as the acceleration due to gravity on Earth has nothing to due with faith. I know what it is because of countless (on this case) observation and applications of this value, as well as the theory of gravity (and countless applications and observations of this theory).

The fuck is wrong with you people
Click to expand...
Which religion doesn't believe in gravity? Gravity takes no faith to accept, but that is not true of a whole lot of science for the vast majority of people.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,473
2,276
So are you saying that you are skeptical of all science that you have not personally understood and seen proven first hand?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Yes, and please stop trying to equivocate between relying on results that have been demonstrated to work time and time again for hundreds of years now, with relying on absurd conjectures for which no evidence has ever, nor will ever, be presented, and cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form.

Science demonstrates its validity through its results.

This discussion belongs in the Atheism thread, as we are watching the stale old Creationist trope of trying to drag science down to the same level as religion so that they can punch in the same weight class. It has been refuted a million times a million times.

Faith is belief without evidenceandwithout regard for the evidence.

Trusting in the scientific method to self correct and provide mostly accurate and functional answers is not remotely comparable to faith. When faith can land a probe on a comet traveling hundreds of thousands of miles an hour through the voids of space after a decade long voyage, then and only then does it get to call into question the methodology and reasonable trust in the scientific method to provide real, substantive results, which is something religion has never, and will never, accomplish.


This is why Boghassian's definition of faith helps to bridge this gap and correct this error in thinking. Faith is defined by Boghassian as "Pretending to know things you can'tpossiblyknow".

You can possibly know scientific information as fact based upon simple, but rigorous, research and study, if one so chooses.

We cannot possibly know that there is a magic man that exists outside time and space that magicked up the universe as some sort of cosmic game board on which the souls of humanity are the pawns.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,040
19,501
BrutulTM_sl said:
So are you saying that you are skeptical of all science that you have not personally understood and seen proven first hand?
Click to expand...
Yes. Isaac Newton explained how gravity worked extremely well and it appeared obvious to everyone who had experienced it first hand that it must have been true. Then Einstein came along with an even more accurate theory and that is now what is currently accepted. Science always tries to improve itself and actively looks for ways it is "wrong", so it can correct it and now be "right". You're given exact methodology regarding experiments and how you can repeat it yourself to verify or refute the results.

Faith offers no such thing. Comparing the two as basically the same thing is complete idiocy.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Brutul, I don't think you have a prayer of being able to do it, but if you could somehow show me where I am using Faith in my Science...... the thing that I will drop like a hot potato is the faith, not the science!

Faith is literallytheweakest intellectual position a person can take. Actually, it is the specific lack of any intellectual position whatsoever. It is the complete surrender of all intellectualism. It is, truly, the end-game position of feelz over reelz.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,588
11,904
AngryGerbil_sl said:
Brutul, I don't think you have a prayer of being able to do it, but if you could somehow show me where I am using Faith in my Science...... the thing that I will drop like a hot potato is the faith, not the science!

Faith is literallytheweakest intellectual position a person can take. Actually, it is the specific lack of any intellectual position whatsoever. It is the complete surrender of all intellectualism. It is, truly, the end-game position of feelz over reelz.
Click to expand...
I have faith you aren't really an Angry Gerbil. I have no proof of this, just faith!
 
W

WHITE PENIS_sl

shitlord
358
1
science has predictive power which can give a degree of confidence and can result in, you know, actually doing shit

every faith on earth since the beginning of time has the exact same predictive power: random chance

have fun flying in your faith-based airplane!

be sure to give your kids faith-based medicine!
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
WHITE PENIS_sl said:
I think you're using "faith" when you mean to be using "confidence"...

subtle but significant difference
Click to expand...
Depends on how far back you're looking, really. When you're talking about the earliest state of the universe, like the first 20 seconds of expansion or whatever... that stuff is faith based. If you're talking about why galaxies don't fly apart at the seams, that's confidence. And that's fine with me, it makes the science no less.

But for the social sciences, i'm sticking with it being 90% faith. There's no real confidence in psychology or economics. There are a bag of tricks, and you throw shit at the wall until something sticks.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
More like the first 20 milliseconds bro, and that's still not a matter of faith. We just can't explain with any known mathematical models how it functions. We know it happened, for a fact. There is no doubt about that. That is demonstrable.
 
W

WHITE PENIS_sl

shitlord
358
1
Iannis_sl said:
Depends on how far back you're looking, really. When you're talking about the earliest state of the universe, like the first 20 seconds of expansion or whatever... that stuff is faith based. If you're talking about why galaxies don't fly apart at the seams, that's confidence. And that's fine with me, it makes the science no less.

But for the social sciences, i'm sticking with it being 90% faith. There's no real confidence in psychology or economics. There are a bag of tricks, and you throw shit at the wall until something sticks.
Click to expand...
lol, typical. completely moves the goal-posts from the original statement. now were to believe you were talking about economics all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.