7 ms·

I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly

I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly run into problems due to people who present things which are actually beliefs as if they were facts. The existence of God is not a fact, not even remotely close to being one. If it was then basically everyone would believe in God because any unbeliever would be seen as crazy as someone who doesn't believe in gravity. But lots of people don't believe in God. The existence of God is an article of faith, and that is simply not something you can blow off as "words like 'fact' are overloaded". Really, this whole sub-thread is strong evidence for why edraferi's proposal would be very difficult. Such a website or tool could not even handle a debating-101 discussion on religion because people would have no way to agree on what the facts were.

humanrebar 10y ago
The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position. But I agree with you on the tool. Even if we can assume a healthy community (a huge assumption) the tool would have to pick some first principles and scientific standards that would inevitably be controversial. We could maybe have different sections based on different first principles, but then we're back to a fragmented, insular culture.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Maybe machine learning could help identify differences in accepted definitions of words and different assumptions. This came up in another thread recently, but I'll restate the idea here: maybe an n-dimensional vector can be assigned to each assumption or each individual's understanding of a word, and then nearby vectors compared to see where different groups have similar ideas but use different words to describe them (or vice versa). The word "faith", for example, probably means something completely different to a scientist who has "faith" (confidence) in a particular experimental method, versus a religious person who has "faith" (belief/hope) in God, versus a parent who has "faith" (trust) in a child. A tool for discussion could help elucidate these differences in usage and bridge the linguistic gap that can form between groups.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    Great thoughts. I have had similar ones from a theological perspective. Probably the most famous words of Jesus, from John 3, say that "whoever believes in [Jesus] will not perish". The word 'belief' here is from the Koine Greek root 'pistis' (1), which is also translated as 'faith' in its noun form. It absolutely carries connotations of trust, relationship, and fidelity. To the point where it is nonsense to have faith without personal consequences such as changed behavior (see James 1). So I believe your last definition fits the ideas of the Bible better. Anyway, both Christians and non-Christians in the English speaking world tend to use the word 'faith' to fit your second definition, something more like wish/hope/belief/feeling. So I can understand atheist's offense when Christians say atheism and science are each expressions of faith, but I think a lot of it comes from the sort of 'linguistic gap' you talk about. Anyway, it's a shame we don't more words to distinguish between these overloaded ideas: faith, facts, love, etc. (1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4102&t=ESV https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  >The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position Is it? I really hope you're merely lying in order to socially signal religiousness, because the general form of this argument allows that technically, you don't know that this SMBC is false [0]. I believe that densely-packed Hitlers exist all around you. The inexistence of the densely packed Hitlers crowding just outside the cone of your vision is an article of faith. It's typically faith in the truth of a universe whose boundary conditions are subject to Popperian falsifiability. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3307 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3307

humanrebar 10y ago

The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position. But I agree with you on the tool. Even if we can assume a healthy community (a huge assumption) the tool would have to pick some first principles and scientific standards that would inevitably be controversial. We could maybe have different sections based on different first principles, but then we're back to a fragmented, insular culture.

nitrogen 10y ago
Maybe machine learning could help identify differences in accepted definitions of words and different assumptions. This came up in another thread recently, but I'll restate the idea here: maybe an n-dimensional vector can be assigned to each assumption or each individual's understanding of a word, and then nearby vectors compared to see where different groups have similar ideas but use different words to describe them (or vice versa). The word "faith", for example, probably means something completely different to a scientist who has "faith" (confidence) in a particular experimental method, versus a religious person who has "faith" (belief/hope) in God, versus a parent who has "faith" (trust) in a child. A tool for discussion could help elucidate these differences in usage and bridge the linguistic gap that can form between groups.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  Great thoughts. I have had similar ones from a theological perspective. Probably the most famous words of Jesus, from John 3, say that "whoever believes in [Jesus] will not perish". The word 'belief' here is from the Koine Greek root 'pistis' (1), which is also translated as 'faith' in its noun form. It absolutely carries connotations of trust, relationship, and fidelity. To the point where it is nonsense to have faith without personal consequences such as changed behavior (see James 1). So I believe your last definition fits the ideas of the Bible better. Anyway, both Christians and non-Christians in the English speaking world tend to use the word 'faith' to fit your second definition, something more like wish/hope/belief/feeling. So I can understand atheist's offense when Christians say atheism and science are each expressions of faith, but I think a lot of it comes from the sort of 'linguistic gap' you talk about. Anyway, it's a shame we don't more words to distinguish between these overloaded ideas: faith, facts, love, etc. (1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4102&t=ESV https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
justratsinacoat 10y ago
>The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position Is it? I really hope you're merely lying in order to socially signal religiousness, because the general form of this argument allows that technically, you don't know that this SMBC is false [0]. I believe that densely-packed Hitlers exist all around you. The inexistence of the densely packed Hitlers crowding just outside the cone of your vision is an article of faith. It's typically faith in the truth of a universe whose boundary conditions are subject to Popperian falsifiability. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3307 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3307