Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jen5
On 10/19/2018 at 7:52 AM, Ozymandias said:

The world is full of people who are believers or non-believers ('don't knows' are, de facto, not believers).

There is no room for logic or science in this matter.

By definition believers ignore the logic and science.

You can only successfully negotiate this questionnaire if you do not believe in God, full stop.  

Hmm...But my reason for receiving their "bullet" had nothing to do with a view on whether God exists or not...But it might be interesting to take it again and agree that Darwin's theory is true and see if I don't receive the bullet...at any rate, I disagree that it is illogical to question a scientific theory. It has remained a theory for the exact reason that it is not yet fully proven to the scientific rigors to become a law.

It is illogical to insist a person must insist that a theory is true or false. A theory has not been fully proved, so to insist it must be either true OR false is actually unscientific.

Edited by Jen5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Hmm...But my reason for receiving their "bullet" had nothing to do with a view on whether God exists or not...But it might be interesting to take it again and agree that Darwin's theory is true and see if I don't receive the bullet...at any rate, I disagree that it is illogical to question a scientific theory. It has remained a theory for the exact reason that it is not yet fully proven to the scientific rigors to become a law.

So do you dismiss relatively? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So do you dismiss relatively? 

Um...no. I dismiss a test that says I am illogical if I won't say a certain theory is the truth. It's a theory specifically because it hasn't been proved yet to be the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

And I'm not certain what it means to dismiss something relatively.

Just kidding, I'm pretty sure you meant relativity.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
42 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

And I'm not certain what it means to dismiss something relatively.

Just kidding, I'm pretty sure you meant relativity.

Yeah fecking auto-correct on my phone wasn't turned off 

Yeah I meant relativity. You understand that it's a theory, in fact everything is just a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
24 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah fecking auto-correct on my phone wasn't turned off 

Yeah I meant relativity. You understand that it's a theory, in fact everything is just a theory.

Fecking. Haha!

Well...that's not precise. When talking about science, we deal with hypotheses, theories and laws. I'm not a scientist but I understand the law of gravity to be that if an Apple falls from a tree, it always falls downward, never upward. It's a law because it always happens that way. So it's not a theory, it's a law, because it happens that way always and without fail.

a theory would explain, with mathematics, HOW the law works. Like...one man sa ys the Apple always goes downward.  Then another man cones up with a theory to describe how/why. 

So everything is not a theory. That the Apple will always fall downward is a law. 

This is why we say: the law of gravity. We do not say: the theory of gravity.

Edited by Jen5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
25 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Fecking. Haha!

Well...that's not precise. When talking about science, we deal with hypotheses, theories and laws. I'm not a scientist but I understand the law of gravity to be that if an Apple falls from a tree, it always falls downward, never upward. It's a law because it always happens that way. So it's not a theory, it's a law, because it happens that way always and without fail.

a theory would explain, with mathematics, HOW the law works. Like...one man sa ys the Apple always goes downward.  Then another man cones up with a theory to describe how/why. 

So everything is not a theory. That the Apple will always fall downward is a law. 

I'm a physicist, everything can be argued to be a theory. The basic difference is a theory is the explanation of WHY a phenomenon occurs, (I'm not gonna call it law I believe principle is the correct term here) and a scientific principle is describing the phenomenon that occurred. Through repetition of never being falsified in experiments. 

So yeah gravity or Newton's theory of gravity was superseded by Einsteins theory of relativity. Both describe the same phenomenon. But a principle by definition must be universal and unchanging, as we know the theory of relativity breaks down in certain cases. So I could argue that gravity (simply because it was superseded by another theory) isn't a principle, but I'd end up looking like a lunatic. So I won't.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
1 hour ago, Jen5 said:

Um...no. I dismiss a test that says I am illogical if I won't say a certain theory is the truth. It's a theory specifically because it hasn't been proved yet to be the truth. 

FYI - theories are mighty strong:

Theories and laws[edit]

See also: Scientific law

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[29] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[30] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[31]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[29][32][33] Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence.[34]

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[35][36] However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported.[37] For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm a physicist, everything can be argued to be a theory. The basic difference is a theory is the explanation of WHY a phenomenon occurs, (I'm not gonna call it law I believe principle is the correct term here) and a scientific principle is describing the phenomenon that occurred. Through repetition of never being falsified in experiments. 

So yeah gravity or Newton's theory of gravity was superseded by Einsteins theory of relativity. Both describe the same phenomenon. But a principle by definition must be universal and unchanging, as we know the theory of relativity breaks down in certain cases. So I could argue that gravity (simply because it was superseded by another theory) isn't a principle, but I'd end up looking like a lunatic. So I won't.

Hmm...I don't understand your thought process o r your definitions. A law is a statement. The Apple always falls down. It is a statement based on an observable...phenomenon. No one can, or ever has, proven it is not true. It is always true on earth. It is observably  always true. This makes it a law. this law was not superseded by Einstein's theory. It was explained or attempted to be explained by Einstein. Einstein didn't supersede or replace it. The Apple still falls down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
19 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

FYI - theories are mighty strong:

Theories and laws[edit]

See also: Scientific law

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[29] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[30] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[31]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[29][32][33] Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence.[34]

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[35][36] However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported.[37] For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact.[4]

I disagree that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
2 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

I disagree that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact. 

 

What don't you agree with, with Darwin's theory of evolution?

All of it, or part of it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
26 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm a physicist

 

I thought you were an ambassador?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

That there is an Apple tree in a field is a fact. 

that if an Apple falls from it, it will always fall downward is a law. 

The law involves what always happens between two things, the Apple and the ground.

If I try to determine and explain why this is so, I have a theory. My theory doesn't change the observable law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
16 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Hmm...I don't understand your thought process o r your definitions. A law is a statement. The Apple always falls down. It is a statement based on an observable...phenomenon. No one can, or ever has, proven it is not true. It is always true on earth. It is observably  always true. This makes it a law. this law was not superseded by Einstein's theory. It was explained or attempted to be explained by Einstein. Einstein didn't supersede or replace it. The Apple still falls down.

If you don't understand the difference between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity I'm not going to bother to proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I thought you were an ambassador?

 

 

That's my super secret job. 

Technically I'm just a Doctor of Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
11 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

That there is an Apple tree in a field is a fact. 

 

And it's also a fact that when the right person eats the wrong apple, there will be a default. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

What don't you agree with, with Darwin's theory of evolution?

All of it, or part of it?

 

 

I disagree with an ape evolving into a human or a man evolving into an aquatic animal. I have no problem with a hummingbird developing a longer or shorter beak depending on weather patterns becoming drier or wetter for periods of time.  It's observable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

If you don't understand the difference between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity I'm not going to bother to proceed.

Okay. It was nevertheless pleasant to talk with you this morning.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80


So I took the questionaire, 'got hurt' on account of my answer about the Nessie thing.. choosing the answer believing in such a creature without physical proof would not be rational.

This 'conflicted' with my earlier answer regarding the belief in G*d, that it isnt irrational without tangible proof, or something like that (thas been a few days ago). The difference ofcourse is, the former is a pysical being leaving physical proof on this earth per definition, the latter a creator of reality; a role which per very definition does not leave physical / direct proof of its existence. No tracks, no nests, no corpse / bones, no excrement, no such thing.

In other words, Im not quite sure said 'hurt' assessment is sound..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
16 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Okay. It was nevertheless pleasant to talk with you this morning.

Likewise. 

But it's evening here, and the babas are just fed which means they are going to bed now, so I'll have to ask you to explain why you think evolution is not a fact? And perhaps read it later. But be aware I'm by no means an expert on it, just curious as to why you disagree with it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


So I took the questionaire, 'got hurt' on account of my answer about the Nessie thing.. choosing the answer believing in such a creature without physical proof would not be rational.

This 'conflicted' with my earlier answer regarding the belief in G*d, that it isnt irrational without tangible proof, or something like that (thas been a few days ago). The difference ofcourse is, the former is a pysical being leaving physical proof on this earth per definition, the latter a creator of reality; a role which per very definition does not leave physical / direct proof of its existence. No tracks, no nests, no corpse / bones, no excrement, no such thing.

In other words, Im not quite sure said 'hurt' assessment is sound..

It's a very loaded assessment in all honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 hours ago, Jen5 said:

From what I've read, it was commonly accepted by scientists and by laypersons, and men who refuted it were put to death or their very lives threatened at the least.

Interestingly, I've read twice in the bible that the earth is a round orb that hangs on nothing. So it seems that men believed it was round (at least some men at some time in history) and then scientists said no, it's flat, and then other scientists said no, it's round. And they've done the same thing with eggs good, eggs bad, eggs good!

And I'm not knocking science. I'm knocking the test the op posted, where if I don't agree with everything and anything that scientists currently believe, then ima idjit. They do have a history of reversing themselves on many things. Which, mind you, isn't bad. Hopefully we ALL reverse ourselves on many things as we grow and learn more.

Which scientists said it was flat and killed people for refusing to believe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Hmm...But my reason for receiving their "bullet" had nothing to do with a view on whether God exists or not...But it might be interesting to take it again and agree that Darwin's theory is true and see if I don't receive the bullet...at any rate, I disagree that it is illogical to question a scientific theory. It has remained a theory for the exact reason that it is not yet fully proven to the scientific rigors to become a law.

It is illogical to insist a person must insist that a theory is true or false. A theory has not been fully proved, so to insist it must be either true OR false is actually unscientific.

Theories never become laws. A scientific theory is an explanation backed up with verifiable evidence.

BTW Newton's law of gravitation does not explain what "gravity" is.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
26 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


So I took the questionaire, 'got hurt' on account of my answer about the Nessie thing.. choosing the answer believing in such a creature without physical proof would not be rational.

This 'conflicted' with my earlier answer regarding the belief in G*d, that it isnt irrational without tangible proof, or something like that (thas been a few days ago). The difference ofcourse is, the former is a pysical being leaving physical proof on this earth per definition, the latter a creator of reality; a role which per very definition does not leave physical / direct proof of its existence. No tracks, no nests, no corpse / bones, no excrement, no such thing.

In other words, Im not quite sure said 'hurt' assessment is sound..

Interesting...I think you're referring to the question that was something like...it's irrational to believe God exists without proof?

I guess I answered it differently than you. I think it would be nutty (to me) to believe in God without proof He exists. I could just as easily decide to believe fairies exist. And I'd be every bit as nutty for that! 

Maybe they assumed I had no proof...true, I can't share my proof with them. Not true that I don't have proof. That's odd when I think about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
27 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Which scientists said it was flat and killed people for refusing to believe it?

I don't think scientists killed scientists! I mean, they could have I suppose, but I've never heard of it in any writings. no, it was the church that killed scientists for their remarks. I think it was mostly scientists who said Copernicus was correct that were persecuted...might have that wrong...think it was men who believed Copernicus to be correct who were burned and tortured...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.