Meditations

[Anteroinen]

Science always begins with beliefs, and science is something we believe, ie, it doesn't exist outside of our brains.

There is no way of knowing what is real and what isn't. We can only assume that what we see, hear, feel and smell is real. The only thing we are certain of existence is our thoughts and our ability to think. Everything else is an assumption (or belief). I like to think of beliefs in two levels (the first builds upon the second):
1. Belief in what we sense is real
2. Belief in a diety/god
Science is a belief, but doesn't need to always be regarded as one (we don't often use it in such a context).

Wait, the first builds up on the second? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Partly true,science is the STUDY of natural phenomena,not the TRUTH about it.

Good point, but I don't see how that only makes partly true. The fact that we can't be sure of its truth makes a belief. Does it not?

No. Beliefs are not evidence based. Furthermore, the evidence exists within reality, even if the reality is a mirage.

[Vortex]

Wait, the first builds up on the second? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, you don't need to believe in any deity to believe that food exists, for example. If not, all atheists would have died from starvation by now XD
I think they're at best independent, except when one senses a god or something similar.

No. Beliefs are not evidence based. Furthermore, the evidence exists within reality, even if the reality is a mirage.

Technically it's also a belief, in the epistemological sense, not? But one justified on evidence.

[Redafro]

Yeah, we are kind of revisiting this topic. I know I wrote down my thoughts on this somewhere...

Edit: Here is some of it, from the old forum:

So, I'd like to take a sloooowww, tentative step back towards the previous controversy. My biggest hobby and interest is why people believe what they do. If you've read any of my blather in the "a suggested voting methodology" thread, I make a distinction between theorizing about things we can physically/systematically/scientifically test, and theorizing about things we cannot, the metaphysical. It is perhaps simpler to simply say universally observable and personally observable. A personally observable belief ca be anything from your favorite ice cream, to a commitment to love someone, to a commitment to a deity or lack of one. These are things only the individual can confirm. True, others might claim to know we believe such things to be true, but only we can truly understand all the nuances involved in our belief.

That is just the tip of the iceberg... but I'll move on.

An argument I have been working on for a long time says that ideally, we want our personally observable beliefs to conform to universally observable beliefs as much as possible. To clarify, not popular belief, but testable beliefs. "Facts" we usually call them, but I'm a little too post-structuralist to trust that term. (Ultimately we cannot prove anything absolutely. I believe absolute truths exist, but we just don't have the capacity to confirm them.) This is what I would call reasonable. So long as a personal belief does not greatly conflict with universally observable beliefs, we have free reign to explore and experiment with any personally observable beliefs we might be inclined to believe. Thus, we really have no ground on which to argue against any ones personal beliefs, except for on the grounds of clear scientific contradiction. And even then, I'm not sure how solid our grounds are, as much of science has itself been done under certain assumptions.

Anyhow... if we can have this discussion without ugly words, or if we even care about the topic, have at it. XD

Edit 2: I looked through the thread and didn't see much more about this, though I'm sure I've had the conversation. I think it was on one of my theory threads...

[The Abacus]

Wait, the first builds up on the second? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, you don't need to believe in any deity to believe that food exists, for example. If not, all atheists would have died from starvation by now XD
I think they're at best independent, except when one senses a god or something similar.

Oops. I meant the other way around.

So, I'd like to take a sloooowww, tentative step back towards the previous controversy. My biggest hobby and interest is why people believe what they do. If you've read any of my blather in the "a suggested voting methodology" thread, I make a distinction between theorizing about things we can physically/systematically/scientifically test, and theorizing about things we cannot, the metaphysical. It is perhaps simpler to simply say universally observable and personally observable. A personally observable belief ca be anything from your favorite ice cream, to a commitment to love someone, to a commitment to a deity or lack of one. These are things only the individual can confirm. True, others might claim to know we believe such things to be true, but only we can truly understand all the nuances involved in our belief.

That is just the tip of the iceberg... but I'll move on.

An argument I have been working on for a long time says that ideally, we want our personally observable beliefs to conform to universally observable beliefs as much as possible. To clarify, not popular belief, but testable beliefs. "Facts" we usually call them, but I'm a little too post-structuralist to trust that term. (Ultimately we cannot prove anything absolutely. I believe absolute truths exist, but we just don't have the capacity to confirm them.) This is what I would call reasonable. So long as a personal belief does not greatly conflict with universally observable beliefs, we have free reign to explore and experiment with any personally observable beliefs we might be inclined to believe. Thus, we really have no ground on which to argue against any ones personal beliefs, except for on the grounds of clear scientific contradiction. And even then, I'm not sure how solid our grounds are, as much of science has itself been done under certain assumptions.

Anyhow... if we can have this discussion without ugly words, or if we even care about the topic, have at it. XD

I remember reading this.

[Anteroinen]

Wait, the first builds up on the second? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, you don't need to believe in any deity to believe that food exists, for example. If not, all atheists would have died from starvation by now XD
I think they're at best independent, except when one senses a god or something similar.

Oops. I meant the other way around.

Oh, good, thank God - irony not intended.

So, I'd like to take a sloooowww, tentative step back towards the previous controversy. My biggest hobby and interest is why people believe what they do. If you've read any of my blather in the "a suggested voting methodology" thread, I make a distinction between theorizing about things we can physically/systematically/scientifically test, and theorizing about things we cannot, the metaphysical. It is perhaps simpler to simply say universally observable and personally observable. A personally observable belief ca be anything from your favorite ice cream, to a commitment to love someone, to a commitment to a deity or lack of one. These are things only the individual can confirm. True, others might claim to know we believe such things to be true, but only we can truly understand all the nuances involved in our belief.

That is just the tip of the iceberg... but I'll move on.

An argument I have been working on for a long time says that ideally, we want our personally observable beliefs to conform to universally observable beliefs as much as possible. To clarify, not popular belief, but testable beliefs. "Facts" we usually call them, but I'm a little too post-structuralist to trust that term. (Ultimately we cannot prove anything absolutely. I believe absolute truths exist, but we just don't have the capacity to confirm them.) This is what I would call reasonable. So long as a personal belief does not greatly conflict with universally observable beliefs, we have free reign to explore and experiment with any personally observable beliefs we might be inclined to believe. Thus, we really have no ground on which to argue against any ones personal beliefs, except for on the grounds of clear scientific contradiction. And even then, I'm not sure how solid our grounds are, as much of science has itself been done under certain assumptions.

Anyhow... if we can have this discussion without ugly words, or if we even care about the topic, have at it. XD

I think I've already summed up my views on this pretty well.

[Oleander]

We've pretty much been on the same topic for the whole thread I think, but I'd like to consider another idea:

A lot of people (myself included) are not very happy about the state of education in the U.S. Many people bring a lot of issues up in the schools themselves, in the Boards of Education, but there seems to be a big issue that I find extremely confusing: a fairly large portion of students even at the high school level seem to accept and promote the idea that being bad at school is a good thing-that is, it's "cool" to do poorly in your academic studies. It's a fact that this is quite prevalent, but I'm kind of wondering why this happens. Why would any group of sane people promote mediocrity and even failure?

[Redafro]

I think it is a bizarre kind of rebellion against how school is run. Our education system is archaic, quite literally. It hasn't been rethought in 300 years or more. Ideally, kids would rebel by educating themselves while in class, but instead they rebel by intentionally failing boring classes.

[Isobel The Sorceress]

Why would any group of sane people promote mediocrity and even failure?

Humans are gregarious animals. We tend to mimic each other in order to "fit in". This is a very strong urge, an it often overrides common sense. You have to remember that an average human is not that smart, and smarter people are a minority.

[The Kakama]

Example:my class(see drawing thread)
Of course,that depends on your definition of "smart";if it is acedemically,then almost everyone is smart here.

[Vurn]

According to the Education Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index) the United States are in the top twenty countries with the best quality of education. For comparison, Poland is 34th, Croatia is 51st, and Turkey is 110th.