3 ms·

> at least not if you are adhering to the scientific method All the information you have comes from your five senses. Isn't some kind of faith necessary to bel

> at least not if you are adhering to the scientific method All the information you have comes from your five senses. Isn't some kind of faith necessary to believe that the scientific method would lead to an accurate understanding of reality?

lisper 3y ago
That depends on what you mean by "an accurate understanding of reality." One can observe empirically that the scientific method converges towards something which enables you to predict the outcomes of experiments more and more accurately is it converges. Whether you want to call that "an accurate understanding of reality" is a terminological quibble, but it seems like an apt label to me.
- tarruda 3y ago
  Note that I'm not arguing against the scientific method, but I'm arguing against your claim that it alone can deliver an accurate understanding of reality outside of what we can experiment and observe. This is your parent response: " You are objectively wrong. It requires no faith. There is simply no evidence for an intelligent being at the root of creation, no data that cannot be explained with much simpler mechanisms than intelligence. The proton is complicated by human standards, but it still is nowhere near as complicated as intelligence" You can look at the CMB and take that as evidence of the big bang, but you are relying on faith when you make either of these statements: - The singularity that resulted in the big bang was created from nothing, time didn't exist before. - The big bang was created by God
  - lisper 3y ago
    Those aren't predictions. Predictions are about things that are still in the future. The BB was in the past. But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none.
    - tarruda 3y ago
      I meant statement, not prediction (sorry for the using the wrong term). > But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none. Yes, all of these require faith. Same as being certain that the initial singularity came from nothing (or from "simpler mechanisms than intelligence" which don't also have a clear origin).
      - lisper 3y ago
        No, it is not the same, because there is evidence that the origin, whatever it might be, is simple.

lisper 3y ago

That depends on what you mean by "an accurate understanding of reality." One can observe empirically that the scientific method converges towards something which enables you to predict the outcomes of experiments more and more accurately is it converges. Whether you want to call that "an accurate understanding of reality" is a terminological quibble, but it seems like an apt label to me.

tarruda 3y ago
Note that I'm not arguing against the scientific method, but I'm arguing against your claim that it alone can deliver an accurate understanding of reality outside of what we can experiment and observe. This is your parent response: " You are objectively wrong. It requires no faith. There is simply no evidence for an intelligent being at the root of creation, no data that cannot be explained with much simpler mechanisms than intelligence. The proton is complicated by human standards, but it still is nowhere near as complicated as intelligence" You can look at the CMB and take that as evidence of the big bang, but you are relying on faith when you make either of these statements: - The singularity that resulted in the big bang was created from nothing, time didn't exist before. - The big bang was created by God
- lisper 3y ago
  Those aren't predictions. Predictions are about things that are still in the future. The BB was in the past. But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none.
  - tarruda 3y ago
    I meant statement, not prediction (sorry for the using the wrong term). > But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none. Yes, all of these require faith. Same as being certain that the initial singularity came from nothing (or from "simpler mechanisms than intelligence" which don't also have a clear origin).
    - lisper 3y ago
      No, it is not the same, because there is evidence that the origin, whatever it might be, is simple.