3 ms·

The definition of "evidence" is what then comes under scrutiny. The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is suffic

The definition of "evidence" is what then comes under scrutiny. The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. There are two different language games being played, with each player insisting their ruleset is the right one.

kybernetikos 3y ago
Yes, I think this is the right argument to have - what constitutes acceptable evidence for an individual to believe something, and what evidence is there, rather than trying to say faith is by definition stupid and therefore people who have faith are stupid, which as I say is a strawman.
mistermann 3y ago
> The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. > The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. Ironically, these two claims are themselves are both faith based, necessarily - those who make such claims do not have access to the fact of the matter on either of these (because it is not possible to attain), thus the mind injects predictions (based on its training) into the individual's stream stream of "reality", and the individual falls for it (as their culture has taught them to). Science even teaches this stuff, which makes the whole thing even more hilarious. The Rationalist community (SSC, LessWrong) has an excellent approach to it (too bad they also forget their scriptures): ~"we are not rationalists, we are aspiring rationalists". Meanwhile: how many innocent Humans died around the world today while us super smart Westerners are living it up in a state of unrealized delusion and unearned decadence?
ganzuul 3y ago
Evidence “number go up”. But when is information actionable? Faith in the ultimate analysis has existence independent of evidence.

kybernetikos 3y ago

Yes, I think this is the right argument to have - what constitutes acceptable evidence for an individual to believe something, and what evidence is there, rather than trying to say faith is by definition stupid and therefore people who have faith are stupid, which as I say is a strawman.

mistermann 3y ago

> The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. > The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. Ironically, these two claims are themselves are both faith based, necessarily - those who make such claims do not have access to the fact of the matter on either of these (because it is not possible to attain), thus the mind injects predictions (based on its training) into the individual's stream stream of "reality", and the individual falls for it (as their culture has taught them to). Science even teaches this stuff, which makes the whole thing even more hilarious. The Rationalist community (SSC, LessWrong) has an excellent approach to it (too bad they also forget their scriptures): ~"we are not rationalists, we are aspiring rationalists". Meanwhile: how many innocent Humans died around the world today while us super smart Westerners are living it up in a state of unrealized delusion and unearned decadence?

ganzuul 3y ago

Evidence “number go up”. But when is information actionable? Faith in the ultimate analysis has existence independent of evidence.