Science vs. Faith: why I think that the gap is closing

[Soul Hiker]

About a week or so ago I wrote about how the longstanding clash between Science and faith is changing as both our understanding of faith and the way we do science is also changing. (See article here for your reference)

This points at very interesting future possibilities.

On the one hand we are starting to realize and understand that consciousness affects and creates our outer reality (and we are also devising ways to test this - see article ). This has implications to our understanding of faith.

On the other hand, science is changing its paradigms and it is starting to understand that you cannot exclude the conscious observer from the picture of reality.

The lines are crossing and the line of divide is blurring.

I would love to hear some comments on this.

[Anagogy]

I can't wait till the gap closes!

Then we can consult higher forces for knowledge on real world applications:

[Soul Hiker]

"Then we can consult higher forces for knowledge on real world applications:"...

@ Anagogy good sarcasm...I like it!

You have almost hit the nail on its head - except in reverse:

what about "Then we can consult real world applied technology for knowledge on higher forces" ??

I think that comes closer to what I really meant by closing the gap

[bluedragon]

Faith is more scientific than remaining in the boundaries of science, because science is limited. Faith in your own authority and in the fact that you can come to know what is true can set you free. Science cannot even conceptualize what would mean to be truly free, even if somehow we would be able to solve all our major problems including illness, death and sorrow. Science is part of the world of boundaries and it can never solve the puzzle because it is a part of it. It's like a policeman who tries to solve a crime, when in fact he is the criminal. If you believe however that you are not this body or this mind, then having faith is much more powerful than limiting yourself to the scientific universe.

[Betrade]

We all live by faith; even scientists who don't believe in anything that they can't prove scientifically.

We all assume that one second from now, the universe will still exist and we'll still be here, but who's to say it will?? Every atom and particle in the universe could just as easily vanish or fall apart. This whole universe popped into existence so who's to say it won't pop out of existence five seconds from now, or that time won't start running backward?? We just assume that these things won't happen because they haven't happened yet.

We all assume the world will continue to turn, that the sun will rise and set and that life will go on. We have faith that the car will start, the bus will show up on time, we'll eat today, etc.

We all live by faith. We also take much for granted.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

Faith is more scientific than remaining in the boundaries of science, because science is limited. Faith in your own authority and in the fact that you can come to know what is true can set you free. Science cannot even conceptualize what would mean to be truly free, even if somehow we would be able to solve all our major problems including illness, death and sorrow. Science is part of the world of boundaries and it can never solve the puzzle because it is a part of it. It's like a policeman who tries to solve a crime, when in fact he is the criminal. If you believe however that you are not this body or this mind, then having faith is much more powerful than limiting yourself to the scientific universe.

The boundaries of science exist for a reason. Science has always been about studying the objective, observable universe. The reason for constraining it as such is to gain a higher level of certainty that any conclusion we come to through science is as accurate as it can be.

Matters of faith tend to be a bit less... rigorous. I'm not saying faith is bad, but it is not science or scientific in any way. Faith is generally accepted by the faithful without rigorous testing. Science is accepted after rigorous testing has taken place, and not before.

Faith has it's place in the world, yes. Yes, science makes some basic assumptions. But, that doesn't make science a matter of faith, nor does it make faith scientific.

[Jaiysun4]

The thing is though, it is faith that is getting closer to science, not the other way around.

It starts off as belief in a Christian God (or whatever), then as a tolerant belief in "some sort of a creator," then accepting the big bang but still having "some belief in a higher power," then reducing religion and spirituality to "belief in hidden scientific facts like energy, psychic ability etc".

In other words, faith becomes belief in "the mysterious and wonderful nature of the universe" and falls into line with science, so to speak.

[Jaiysun4]

Originally Posted by Betrade

We all live by faith; even scientists who don't believe in anything that they can't prove scientifically.

We all assume that one second from now, the universe will still exist and we'll still be here, but who's to say it will?? Every atom and particle in the universe could just as easily vanish or fall apart. This whole universe popped into existence so who's to say it won't pop out of existence five seconds from now, or that time won't start running backward?? We just assume that these things won't happen because they haven't happened yet.

We all assume the world will continue to turn, that the sun will rise and set and that life will go on. We have faith that the car will start, the bus will show up on time, we'll eat today, etc.

We all live by faith. We also take much for granted.

No, we live by assumption based on massive evidence. We don't have FAITH the sun will rise (in the absence of proof), we have OVERWHELMING evidence that it has EVERY DAY in HISTORY, and so we induct that it will again tomorrow.

For example: do we have "faith" that if you were shot it would hurt? According to you it is only faith, because it "might" not hurt. But we all induct that it will, because it hurts the vast majority of people and is backed up by science.

p.s. The sun doesn't rise anyway, the earth rotates.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I can't wait till the gap closes!

Then we can consult higher forces for knowledge on real world applications:

Sort of a "Back to the Future" for you huh? Spiritual and Medicine People have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by floslib

Science has always been about studying the objective, observable universe. The reason for constraining it as such is to gain a higher level of certainty that any conclusion we come to through science is as accurate as it can be.

Matters of faith tend to be a bit less... rigorous. I'm not saying faith is bad, but it is not science or scientific in any way. Faith is generally accepted by the faithful without rigorous testing. Science is accepted after rigorous testing has taken place, and not before.

Faith has it's place in the world, yes. Yes, science makes some basic assumptions. But, that doesn't make science a matter of faith, nor does it make faith scientific.

I think the OP's point is that the distinction between Faith and Science is blurring. For instance, Science has recently been quite focused on documenting and studying what is NOT observable by noting the supposed impact on observable things.

For isntance, we can't directly observe extra-solar planets. But we can deduce that they are there by measuring fluctuations in their star's rotation - also something that is not directly observable, but can be explained mathematically.

We also can't observe sub-atomic particles. But we deduce that they are there based on measurements and calculations applied to what we can see. Sounds a lot like "faith" to me.

Faith - as I understand it anyway - is nothing more than a reaction to personal experience. We experience something and apply a hypothesis to it to explain it. We seek out individuals who have had similar experiences and seek validation for our hypothesis. Sounds fairly "scientific" to me.

Perhaps we're just not be using the best measurement devices to test our "faith-borne" hypothesis and are not truly observing enough to come to conclusions about anything.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Jaiysun4

No, we live by assumption based on massive evidence. We don't have FAITH the sun will rise (in the absence of proof), we have OVERWHELMING evidence that it has EVERY DAY in HISTORY, and so we induct that it will again tomorrow.

I don't see how you're distinguishing "assumption" from "faith". What's the difference between these two terms? You've just admitted that your expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is formed from confirmation bias.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't see how you're distinguishing "assumption" from "faith". What's the difference between these two terms? You've just admitted that your expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is formed from confirmation bias.

>_> ...uh, there's no 'bias' involved there, unless of course, you're a hardcore solipsist... on second thought, perhaps the term 'conclusion' would have been a better word than 'assumption' there, in that case, I'd agree with you.

[PerDev]

There is lot of overlapping between science and Faith in general.

But when Science ends .. Real Faith starts

Originally Posted by Soul Hiker

About a week or so ago I wrote about how the longstanding clash between Science and faith is changing as both our understanding of faith and the way we do science is also changing. (See article here for your reference)

This points at very interesting future possibilities.

On the one hand we are starting to realize and understand that consciousness affects and creates our outer reality (and we are also devising ways to test this - see article ). This has implications to our understanding of faith.

On the other hand, science is changing its paradigms and it is starting to understand that you cannot exclude the conscious observer from the picture of reality.

The lines are crossing and the line of divide is blurring.

I would love to hear some comments on this.

[floslib]

The differences between science and faith boil down to a couple things, I think. This is going to be highly unscientific, because it's a philosophical question we're dealing with, down to how we classify it.

Science is testable. Faith isn't. If you can't test it and can't amass evidence for your view, it isn't science. Additionally, if any and all possibilities support your view, it also isn't science. Furthermore, this evidence has to be observable and consistent, not just anecdotal stories.

The other consideration is a distinction I make personally. Science is the study of this world, also called the physical world. Spirituality (of which faith and religion are subsets) is the study of the next world, also called the spiritual world.

If the next world doesn't exist, then spirituality isn't "true". By this, I mean the conclusions we garner from spirituality are flawed in that they posit such a next world, which wouldn't exist under this possibility. Incidentally, I do believe such a world exists, but that's a spiritual belief, not supported by science.

That wouldn't be to say that spirituality has no practical application in the physical world. This practical application can come in many places. One can just be the hope provided by believing there's another life, or a force to balance out karmic debts. Another is in the areas where most spiritual pursuits encourage goodwill between people. Still another is in the works it can inspire. And some people will find spirituality helps them find a community to help them through difficult times, and they can return that favor to the community. For some people, this helps to give them direction. So even if that next world doesn't exist, that doesn't mean there is no value in it, just that it's value is constructed by us instead of inherent to the path.

Now, perhaps this isn't satisfying to everyone reading. However, I think it's important to try to preserve the meaning between these terms, because in practice they tend to mean different things. Faith doesn't require evidence, though some people will supply it. Science requires evidence. And it requires a specific kind of evidence. It requires observable evidence, and experiments that can be repeated by other scientists to verify the evidence. It also requires that all hypotheses go through a specific process in order to eliminate as much personal bias as possible.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by PerDev

But when Science ends .. Real Faith starts

Yes.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by floslib

This is going to be highly unscientific, because it's a philosophical question we're dealing with, down to how we classify it.

People make the mistake of thinking everything is either Scientific or Faith and that's that.

It's not. While the atheists are battling the Abhrahamists and the Buddhists are watching with bemused boredom, there is a lot more to life than deciding whether or not God exists. Atheists are entirely too smug about their supposed intelligence, and Abhrahamists are entirely too willing to fight back.

I added emphasis to make my point.

Originally Posted by Melchior

>_> ...uh, there's no 'bias' involved there, unless of course, you're a hardcore solipsist... on second thought, perhaps the term 'conclusion' would have been a better word than 'assumption' there, in that case, I'd agree with you.

1) Do you know what confirmation bias is? Please explain so I can be sure we're talking about the same 'bias'.

2) Do you know what solipsism is? Please explain so I can be sure you're actually insulting me, rather than merely being ignorant.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't see how you're distinguishing "assumption" from "faith". What's the difference between these two terms? You've just admitted that your expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is formed from confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

1) Do you know what confirmation bias is? Please explain so I can be sure we're talking about the same 'bias'.

2) Do you know what solipsism is? Please explain so I can be sure you're actually insulting me, rather than merely being ignorant.

1) Confirmation Bias: "is a tendency for people to confirm their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether or not they are true. People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory."

2) Solipsism: "is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist." Also, "Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism."

That said, I wasn't intending to insult you, just make a point, and that is if you were a 'Solipsist', then that induction of the sun rising the next day would confirm your 'bias' of what you thought the world was like, even though you have no 'justification' of it rising (see emphasized above). On the other hand, if you weren't a solipsist, but instead were of the group believing in an objective reality, what we 'know' about the world is gathered off of empirical evidence through, supposedly, the scientific method which is supposed to be "objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results". As such, these 'interpretations' and 'conclusions' that were gathered through empirical evidence aren't biased, conformational or not, given their scientific rigor. This is also why I added in there the 'second thought' which was that if the the word "assumption" had thrown you off on the first comment, then I'd agree that the results from all that empirical evidence taken as an "assumption" about the workings of the world being related to "faith", not the conclusions and interpretations that they actually are. In other words, I'm not insulting you, and neither am I being ignorant, unless of course you have something to add or beg to differ about my understanding of those two terms which, as you may have seen, I've taken from wikipedia which I think we can both agree to as fairly 'common' definitions, or if what you said wasn't what you meant.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Melchior

1) Confirmation Bias: "is a tendency for people to confirm their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether or not they are true. People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory."

2) Solipsism: "is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist." Also, "Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism."

Okay, good. We agree.

Originally Posted by Melchior

That said, I wasn't intending to insult you, just make a point, and that is if you were a 'Solipsist', then that induction of the sun rising the next day would confirm your 'bias' of what you thought the world was like, even though you have no 'justification' of it rising (see emphasized above). On the other hand,

I will stop you here and point out that you're making a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man. You cannot frame the world in terms of solipsists and non-solipsists, even on this forum, where subjective reality--to which I made no reference--has been repeatedly defended and shown to be different from solipsism.

Nothing I said suggested solipsism, nor did anything I say suggest subjective reality. So I expected you were trying to insult me and failing, or simply had no idea what you were talking about.

I am referring to textbook Karl Popper. The key to the scientific method is falsifiability. It is the assumption that everything we know is false, but seems reliable enough for now to work with. That is a cynical interpretation, but it is a point people regularly fail to understand.

This problem is well known as the Black Swan Problem: just because the current body of evidence says there have only ever been white swans, there must not be any black swans. The evidence was merely incomplete: there are black swans. Similarly, just because the current body of evidence says that the sun rises every day does not actually mean it will rise tomorrow.

Thus, we come to the original problem:

Originally Posted by Melchior

As such, these 'interpretations' and 'conclusions' that were gathered through empirical evidence aren't biased, conformational or not, given their scientific rigor.

There was no scientific rigor in the statement given above. His basis for belief was "overwhelming evidence". This is the same basis given by Christians for the existence of God.

There is no science involved in this.

Originally Posted by Melchior

This is also why I added in there the 'second thought' which was that if the the word "assumption" had thrown you off on the first comment, then I'd agree that the results from all that empirical evidence taken as an "assumption" about the workings of the world being related to "faith", not the conclusions and interpretations that they actually are.

My point, actually, was that his claim was nonsensical.

Generally speaking, people claiming a fight between science and faith seem to have no grasp of logic. I am not saying they are unreasonable: I'm saying that they seem to have little to no training in how to construct or refute a logical argument. That is not necessarily their fault, and I do not hold it against them, but it leaves a glaring omission in their ability to think about the differences and similarities between "faith" and "science".

Science is falsifiable. While I otherwise commend your above-average understanding of science, this key piece was missing from your explanation of it. The purpose of science is not to determine truth, but to determine what isn't true. Now, of course, science makes all kinds of claims, statements, and declarations. It has to, or it will be seen to be useless, which it is not. But the fundamental grounding of science is that while your theory works well enough for right now, it is always assailable, always refutable, always disprovable. Despite overwhelming evidence already collected that says you're right.

We have a very lovely notion of gravity. Had one, that is, until Einstein came along. Then we found out we were wrong: things do not fall down. There is no down. Things merely move towards the center of spacetime deformation. Einstein likewise shot holes in our understanding of inertia, but only at "relativistic speeds". These are classic example of what I am talking about.

We generate assumptions from our conclusions daily, based on our experience of the world. It is useful to make the illogical leap from the sun having risen every day of our lives to the sun rising tomorrow: we can reliably anticipate and plan for a day full of sunshine. But that doesn't make it logical, scientific, or true. I could spin a dozen wild stories giving an irrefutable explanation for why the sun might not rise tomorrow, starting with aliens keeping us in a jar and turning out the light (God decided Let there Not be Light), and they are equally valid: which is to say they are assertions as utterly groundless as the other. So it is fair to say that "assumption" and "conclusion" can be interchangeable in this context.

As for faith... the term is usually meaningless. I personally take it to be a set of self-evident propositions, axioms, assumptions. I don't see any difference between the word "assumption" and "faith". If Jaiysun4 does, or you do, then I'd like to hear an explanation.

...

And I was saying that Jaiysun4's belief was formed of confirmation bias, which it is. I know, for instance, that during some periods of the year, the sun does not rise at the poles of the Earth, despite overwhelming evidence, and assuming he is not merely ignorant, he has discarded this fact in favor of his belief. I also know, as pointed out above, that there are a myriad of scenarios in which the sun might not rise, at my latitude, tomorrow: but these are apparently not worth consideration.

Ergo, confirmation bias. The reinforcement of existing beliefs by selectively ignoring evidence to the contrary. Also, the sun did not rise on October 6, 1582. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out why.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Also, the sun did not rise on October 6, 1582. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out why.

Cool... Homework. 'Course, it seems to not have risen in only Italy, Portugal, Spain and Poland. Everyone else aparantly had a fine sunrise that day.

Love the conversation by the way. Please, keep going.

[joelr]

Regardless of what Popper says "Inductive Logic" is still known as a type of logic. It does not claim to give the absolute truth like deductive logic but it assigns a type of probability.
Inductive information gathering is not uncommon in cosmology. It's part of science. There isn't much deductive logic on a Blazar just yet.


The confirmation bias deals with emotion.
An inductive study of Christianity looks at all possible historical evidence. Tries to de-construct it.
A bias study would stick to Christian versions of what is historically relevant and would obviously include only things that support the idea.

I don't think his statement about the sun was literal, he meant "tomorrow the sun will do it's "thing" we call "rising" which of course is seen and felt more-so in certain parts of the globe". Or more accurately "Tomorrow the Earth will likely continue to rotate on it's axis and spin around the sun which will still be at the same location in space and expelling the same amount of energy".
There is no emotional or subconscious bias there.
If there were reason for him to think the sun were going Nova tomorrow but he witheld the information it would be bias and bad science.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I will stop you here and point out that you're making a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man. You cannot frame the world in terms of solipsists and non-solipsists, even on this forum, where subjective reality--to which I made no reference--has been repeatedly defended and shown to be different from solipsism.

Ok... so how is explaining my original point a straw man? And who are you to say that I can't frame the world that way? Moreover, who are you to say that what I said was making a false dichotomy, or a dichotomy at all? Also, I never made reference to subjective reality either, you did.

Nothing I said suggested solipsism, nor did anything I say suggest subjective reality.

Sure, to you perhaps, under your reasoning perhaps, but quite frankly, I made an association based on what I understood of the terms, so the suggestion was there, whether you like it or not.

I am referring to textbook Karl Popper. The key to the scientific method is falsifiability. It is the assumption that everything we know is false, but seems reliable enough for now to work with. That is a cynical interpretation, but it is a point people regularly fail to understand.

Yeah, what about that original assumption (emphasized)? I'm fairly certain that comes out of the circular reasoning dealy that inductive reasoning works because it always has worked (which comes form inductive reasoning).

Similarly, just because the current body of evidence says that the sun rises every day does not actually mean it will rise tomorrow.

Yeah, and the current body of evidence also says that if it doesn't rise tomorrow, then most likely there is something that excepts this from the current theory rather than invalidating it altogether.

There was no scientific rigor in the statement given above. His basis for belief was "overwhelming evidence". This is the same basis given by Christians for the existence of God.

There is no science involved in this.

Of course, I took "overwhelming evidence" to be all the empirical evidence that we know, not just that the sun appears to rise, but also the large amount of data that suggests that the earth revolves around the sun, etc., etc. If you didn't, then I don't see any reason to carry on this discussion, because you won't be able to believe anything I say, or have a chance of even reading what I wrote here because I won't be able to explicitly prove anything to you because technically, you can't be sure of what you see of the world around you, me included.

As for faith... the term is usually meaningless. I personally take it to be a set of self-evident propositions, axioms, assumptions. I don't see any difference between the word "assumption" and "faith".

Well, if you include the word assumption in your definition of faith, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't... In general though, faith is a subset of assumptions. And in general, assumptions used in scientific studies gets itself from inductive reasoning, rather than not (which you might regard as faith). So, which 'assumptions' are you starting from then, or are you at all?

Originally Posted by joelr

Regardless of what Popper says "Inductive Logic" is still known as a type of logic. It does not claim to give the absolute truth like deductive logic but it assigns a type of probability.

and, technically speaking, all deductive logic has its base from inductive logic.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Yeah, what about that original assumption (emphasized)? I'm fairly certain that comes out of the circular reasoning dealy that inductive reasoning works because it always has worked (which comes form inductive reasoning).

Correct. Nothing wrong with assumptions as long as you know what they are.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Yeah, and the current body of evidence also says that if it doesn't rise tomorrow, then most likely there is something that excepts this from the current theory rather than invalidating it altogether.

A counterexample always invalidates a universal statement. Basic logic.

Originally Posted by Melchior

If you didn't, then I don't see any reason to carry on this discussion

Why are we having this discussion? What are you trying to get from it? I wanted to understand Jaiysun4's distinction between assumption and faith, but you seem interested only in asserting that "overwhelming evidence" is some kind of miracle drug that results in 100% certainty. Why?

Originally Posted by Melchior

And in general, assumptions used in scientific studies gets itself from inductive reasoning, rather than not (which you might regard as faith). So, which 'assumptions' are you starting from then, or are you at all?

Which scientific studies do you imagine I am conducting right now based on this list of assumptions you want from me? I recognize and agree that I should know what assumptions I'm starting from, and I should definitely be able to provide a reasonable list of relevant bits and be open to others pointing out others I've missed...

...but where do you imagine I'm going from this start?

[marksonamor]

Hey Soul,
Where science become useless from that point faith comes in existent.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A counterexample always invalidates a universal statement. Basic logic.

I wrote:

I took "overwhelming evidence" to be all the empirical evidence that we know, not just that the sun appears to rise, but also the large amount of data that suggests that the earth revolves around the sun, etc., etc.

Then again, like joelr stated earlier, I don't think his statement about the sun was literal. If you took it literally, which seems the case now looking back at the counter arguments you have against it (and Jaiysun4, if it was meant literally), then, my apologies.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Why are we having this discussion? What are you trying to get from it? I wanted to understand Jaiysun4's distinction between assumption and faith, but you seem interested only in asserting that "overwhelming evidence" is some kind of miracle drug that results in 100% certainty. Why?

Well, you said I was either insulting you or was being ignorant, of which I think I've justified that I've done neither (unless it was your interpretation I was being ignorant on, as I've noted many times already, in which case I'm all right with, just make it clear). Also, was understanding really all you were after? iirc, you asserted something about confirmation bias being what forms the expectation of the sun rising when it wasn't, or at least, didn't seem to be the case. Also, you seem to be putting words in my mouth again with this miracle drug thingy, there is no why because I never asserted that. What I did say however was that (emphasis added):

... the current body of evidence also says that if it doesn't rise tomorrow, then most likely there is something that excepts this from the current theory rather than invalidating it altogether.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Which scientific studies do you imagine I am conducting right now based on this list of assumptions you want from me? I recognize and agree that I should know what assumptions I'm starting from, and I should definitely be able to provide a reasonable list of relevant bits and be open to others pointing out others I've missed...

...but where do you imagine I'm going from this start?

I don't know, I'm not you, and you didn't really answer my question of where you are starting from so it's kinda impossible for me to even guess at where you're going. Evidently however, for whatever reason (and which I attributed to solipsism due to the similarities I saw, and still do as you haven't given me reason/alternative to believe otherwise, except that it obviously isn't the case as seen from your somewhat defensive behavior on the matter), these assumptions have led to the indistinguishability between your definitions of "assumption" and "faith".

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I wrote: Then again, like joelr stated earlier, I don't think his statement about the sun was literal. If you took it literally, which seems the case now looking back at the counter arguments you have against it (and Jaiysun4, if it was meant literally), then, my apologies.

It's a pretty useless statement if it's not meant to be taken literally. In fact, he was then saying nothing at all. I apologize for asking the question, then; clearly, it was far more traumatic than it seemed to me.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Well, you said I was either insulting you or was being ignorant, of which I think I've justified that I've done neither (unless it was your interpretation I was being ignorant on, as I've noted many times already, in which case I'm all right with, just make it clear).

I haven't decided whether you were trying to insult me or not. You've been misinterpreting me since you entered this thread and while you airily claim innocence--might be true--, the overwhelming evidence is that you know perfectly well what you're talking about and what it implies, which suggests you really were insulting me despite your denial of it.

But hey, that's just the overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, was understanding really all you were after?

Oh, no. With you, I wanted to explain what it seemed you didn't understand. You also seem to feel a need to defend Jaiysun4, and to speak for him, so I obliged you. While it's very nice of everyone who has read his mind to tell me what he meant, he hasn't answered and at this point, I doubt I will get anything out of any answer he gives, since the waters have been very nicely muddied by this traipsing.

Originally Posted by Melchior

iirc, you asserted something about confirmation bias being what forms the expectation of the sun rising when it wasn't, or at least, didn't seem to be the case.

Well, that would be the taking literally thing, wouldn't it? You know, that you pointed out that joelr pointed out?

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, you seem to be putting words in my mouth again with this miracle drug thingy, there is no why because I never asserted that.

I, how do you say it, interpreted your words. I'm allowed to do that, right? Should I have taken you literally instead?

Originally Posted by Melchior

you didn't really answer my question of where you are starting from so it's kinda impossible for me to even guess at where you're going. Evidently however, for whatever reason, these assumptions have led to the indistinguishability between your definitions of "assumption" and "faith".

You were asking for the assumptions upon which I base my definition of "assumption" and my definition of "faith"? Whatever are you talking about? Definitions are things completely made up. They're shared between people, sure, and sometimes you try to describe them, but a definition is itself what undergirds an assumption, not the other way around. Why, an assumption is made up of definitions!

Were we to agree that faith is apple pie, I would agree that "faith" and "assumption" are different things. What more do you wish to know?

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I haven't decided whether you were trying to insult me or not.

Sigh... lol, ok, so, let's just leave it at this then: I insulted you. Feel insulted. Hopefully this confirms your thoughts on the matter. Can we be friends now?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Sigh... lol, ok, so, let's just leave it at this then: I insulted you. Feel insulted. Hopefully this confirms your thoughts on the matter. Can we be friends now?

I'd say yes, but you're making it quite clear you don't want to talk to me.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'd say yes, but you're making it quite clear you don't want to talk to me.

If you say so...