2 ms·

We don't need to "embrace" fairytales of omnipotent sky gods to be able to identify with groups larger than ourselves. There are teams and groups of all shapes

by sho 18y ago

We don't need to "embrace" fairytales of omnipotent sky gods to be able to identify with groups larger than ourselves. There are teams and groups of all shapes and sizes and all conceivable missions, with no need of ridiculous 2,000-year-old shepherd diaries. I'm not going to condone "faith" in imaginary entities just because people "want to be part of a group". They can choose a different group. Just like I'm not going to condone rape because people like sex. I know they like sex. It's still wrong.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Looks like somebody didn't get a visit from the Easter Bunny this morning. If you want to believe in something -- even if that something is "I don't believe in anything unless it can be proved empirically" then you should know the limits of that belief system. Because all belief systems have limits. There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true. Science models reality as an abstraction -- and all abstractions are leaky. The power of belief is separate from the thing believed, and the propensity to clan and tell stories is not going to be wished or rationalized away. Besides, there's always hope for next year, right? (wink)
- sho 18y ago
  "There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true." Not in my reasoning there aren't. An example, please, of something that has been proved, yet remains paradoxically untrue? Anyway, I wasn't really talking about beliefs, I was just pointing out that the natural human tendency of "wanting to be part of a group" doesn't excuse or require magical thinking as the price of entry.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    An example, please, of something that has been proved, and remains paradoxically untrue??? Science is built of models, paradigms. These paradigms are validated and true only to the ability of experimenters to empirically verify them. That's the way science works. That's what faith in empiricism entails. So, for instance, Newton was "right" in his law of gravity. But then again, he was wrong because once relativity came along our understanding of gravity changed. It's likely to change again. Science is built on a really interesting idea called induction[1]. It says if you go outside and drop a rock and the next day it rains, and you repeat that experiment a few times, and each time it rains, then you can assume that dropping a rock is a cause of rain. That, of course, is the worst-case scenario -- an experiment that looks good simply because it only fails when ran a (relatively) large number of times. It's easy to prove things that aren't true. We've done it time and time again. And we'll continue to do it. That's the way science works. 1. I'm oversimplifying here to a great degree for brevity's sake
    - sho 18y ago
      I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from your use of the word "true", which to me means "indisputable objective fact", not the current ascendency of a particular theory. For example, water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms. Gravity exerts a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms2. Etc. These kind of things are "true" for me. Theories are things which cannot be "true", really, merely the best current explanation of something. But perhaps I confused the terms and misread your arguments, so actually it seems we're in happy agreement. And yes, I also suspect General Relativity is not the final word.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.
        sho 18y ago
        Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.
  - banned_man 18y ago
    It depends on the standard of proof. Mathematics has no concept of platonic truth (things are true or false within a specific logical system) but precise notions of proof. Since any rich logical system has a P such that neither P or not-P is provable, this means that there are unprovable truths, if the law of the excluded middle is to be assumed (not all logic systems do). Most of the world has it the other way around: a very strong sense of truth/falsity and mediocre standards for "proof", allowing things that turn out to be false to be "proven". Many people have been "proven" guilty then found innocent.

by sho 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Looks like somebody didn't get a visit from the Easter Bunny this morning. If you want to believe in something -- even if that something is "I don't believe in anything unless it can be proved empirically" then you should know the limits of that belief system. Because all belief systems have limits. There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true. Science models reality as an abstraction -- and all abstractions are leaky. The power of belief is separate from the thing believed, and the propensity to clan and tell stories is not going to be wished or rationalized away. Besides, there's always hope for next year, right? (wink)

sho 18y ago
"There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true." Not in my reasoning there aren't. An example, please, of something that has been proved, yet remains paradoxically untrue? Anyway, I wasn't really talking about beliefs, I was just pointing out that the natural human tendency of "wanting to be part of a group" doesn't excuse or require magical thinking as the price of entry.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  An example, please, of something that has been proved, and remains paradoxically untrue??? Science is built of models, paradigms. These paradigms are validated and true only to the ability of experimenters to empirically verify them. That's the way science works. That's what faith in empiricism entails. So, for instance, Newton was "right" in his law of gravity. But then again, he was wrong because once relativity came along our understanding of gravity changed. It's likely to change again. Science is built on a really interesting idea called induction[1]. It says if you go outside and drop a rock and the next day it rains, and you repeat that experiment a few times, and each time it rains, then you can assume that dropping a rock is a cause of rain. That, of course, is the worst-case scenario -- an experiment that looks good simply because it only fails when ran a (relatively) large number of times. It's easy to prove things that aren't true. We've done it time and time again. And we'll continue to do it. That's the way science works. 1. I'm oversimplifying here to a great degree for brevity's sake
  - sho 18y ago
    I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from your use of the word "true", which to me means "indisputable objective fact", not the current ascendency of a particular theory. For example, water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms. Gravity exerts a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms2. Etc. These kind of things are "true" for me. Theories are things which cannot be "true", really, merely the best current explanation of something. But perhaps I confused the terms and misread your arguments, so actually it seems we're in happy agreement. And yes, I also suspect General Relativity is not the final word.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.
      - sho 18y ago
        Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.
- banned_man 18y ago
  It depends on the standard of proof. Mathematics has no concept of platonic truth (things are true or false within a specific logical system) but precise notions of proof. Since any rich logical system has a P such that neither P or not-P is provable, this means that there are unprovable truths, if the law of the excluded middle is to be assumed (not all logic systems do). Most of the world has it the other way around: a very strong sense of truth/falsity and mediocre standards for "proof", allowing things that turn out to be false to be "proven". Many people have been "proven" guilty then found innocent.