/lit/ - Literature

uh

ok sure I guess

if you say so

BTW, the response "because it works" presupposes the validity of Induction, which begs the question and doesn't solve the problem.

I've thought about this OP, and I agree that it really does make a lot of atheists seem like fools. The problem is that the POI is so counter intuitive that otherwise smart and rational people are unable to accept it as a real argument.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/an_evolutionary_a
rgument_against_naturalism.pdf

"The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind."
- James Clerk Maxwell 1850

Because they're reasonable men unlike the religious group!

>>949619
Probability does not bypass the problem or help in any way.

>>949617
OP here

I've always found that argument interesting. Plantinga is one of the few religious philosophers that I like.

>>949619
How do you know how probable something is based on a sample size whose relative size is impossible to know?

Problem still applies, try again.

>>949628

read up bayesian probability

>>949633
I'm the guy who posted it. I think that barring some awfully weird defenses that are either reliant on Idealism or something awfully close, the counter-argument is simply that our success at operating according to such beliefs in the world and constructing accurate verifiable/falsifiable models indicates that however unlikely we indeed have the faculties necessary, and seeing as they lead us to believe evolution to be an accurate model, this also confirms the likelihood of evolution's truth.

Basically, a G.E. Moore shift of sorts.

Plantinga reformulated it in a non-probabilistic framework so I don't know if the argument still works.

>>949642
I'm aware of it, and it is complete bullshit. You cannot calculate how confident you are because you aren't aware of how likely it is that an event is going to occur again by looking at how often it is has occurred in the past. Doesn't work

What problem? Maybe for philosophy but not for science. While you bring up your pretentious quibbles life goes on. Also, I suggest you look up Popper. And maybe take a couple university classes.

OP, the desire for a concrete answer is unavoidable.
The problem for number one could be solved rather easily by stating this:
"All swans that we have seen are white; therefore, all swans that we have seen are white."
That statement doesn't assume anything; it bypasses inductive reasoning and is, therefore, knowledge: all the swans that we have viewed have been white.
2. This presupposition should only be applied in its strictest sense: every single tiny detail of an experiment has to be EXACTLY the same--not one change in any variable, no matter how minuscule--in order for that experiment to yield the same results.
To me that feels logically sound.
If every little thing were the same, then every little result should be the same.

I'll stop blabbering

>>949656
But given the compatibility of both isn't it rational to believe the more probable version?

That's not quite a G.E. Moore shift because the denial isn't about evolution it's about naturalism.

>OP, the desire for a concrete answer is unavoidable
Not really, or is it? I don't care, or do I? Etc....

>>949660
How very insulting. I happen to be a student at a top 3 law school, and I've read Popper. His arguments do not solve the problem of induction. At all.

>>949661
This doesn't make sense. Suppose that all the swans that we have seen are white, and that we can recreate the experiment in which we viewed white swans. So what? The fact that we observe white swans time and time again does not mean that we will observe white swans in the future.

>>949661
>"All swans that we have seen are white; therefore, all swans that we have seen are white."

So the solution is to reduce everything to trivial tautologies?

This is what lead me to stop being a militant atheist and stop caring about these debates. No one can prove anything so you might as well stop trying to argue with each other.

>>949585
Someone once said to me,

"If your so skeptical how can you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? You clearly have faith in that."

I dont have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I formulate a theory that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that the sun has risen every single day of my life thus far, and I test that theory scientifically every single morning.

>>949683
Yes, for ''logicians'' this is it.

>>949687
I think there is also the matter of relevancy. Do your actions actually imply a faith in tomorrow's sunrise? I don't think that most people act as though life were guaranteed, in fact I think most people act in such a way from fear that tomorrow will come rather than belief it will.

>>949581
ＡS PｒＥVｉｏuＳlｙ menＴIoｎｅD,_ｔHＥＳｅ_ｍｅｓsSAｇｅｓ_wＩＬl_ＣｏＮtＩＮｕｅ_ＵNtｉＬ yoU_ＰEＲｍａＮｅNtLｙ_ｓＴＯＰ aｔTaＣＫiNG_And fUCkｉｎｇ_wｉＴH_Ｗｗw.AＮＯnｍOｏｏOTＡｌｋ.ｓｅ (REＭoＶe_ＴHE_cｏｗ SｏｕｎＤ), RＥＭＯVＥ_AｌＬ ｉlｌｅgａl CｌｏｎＥs ＯF ｉT Ａnd_lＩＥs ａｂＯｕＴ_ｉＴ_ａＮD_DＯnａＴＥ AＴ ＬeａSｔ_A mｉlＬＩoＮ_ｕsd ｔo_sYＳＯＰ ａｓ_cＯｍｐＥｎSaｔｉoＮ_ｆｏＲ_ｔＨｅ Ｍaｓsivｅ_ＤamＡＧｅ ｙOU_rｅｔａRＤs ＨＡｖE CAｕＳEＤ.
igmrdwymw ab fg r f ccq uezf loq

>>949696
relevance*

science is more rational because it accepts the fact that it might be wrong; putting blind trust in anything, scientific or theological, is the peak of foolishness.

atheists who blindly believe the scientific theories they've heard to be correct are just as deluded as christians who have unchanging faith in a very old collection of historical fantasy stories.

>>949683
Does it make an assumption: no.
Does it lead to knowledge: yes.

Sounds sound.

induction/deduction is not actually what we're doing as knowing agents. Knowing is not a syntactical activity.

truth/falsity is also not a property of statements, but of beliefs about the totality of the world.

>>949687
That doesn't matter. You can't show that it is more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow than it will not rise tomorrow, despite you're theories. Given that, your belief that it will probably rise tomorrow is completely unjustified.

I've heard of the Problem of Induction before, OP, but honestly, I don't really know how to respond. I'm not too sure of the implications of it to contemporary scientific ideas...I just don't know what to tell you.

I don't judge myself as being "more rational" than Christians though and never have.

>>949705
>science is more rational because it accepts the fact that it might be wrong

There are religious people who consider doubt to be an essential element of faith, and that claims to objective or absolute knowledge are contrary to authentic religiosity especially viz the humility they are supposed to have.

Not saying they're anything like the majority, just deflating the only generalization in an otherwise fairminded post.

>>949705
The fact that it admits it might be wrong doesn't make it more rational because the scientific method implies that past observations can allow us to make accurate predictions about the future. It is the belief that such observations have any sort of validity that is flawed.

This really implies only to the effete atheists who claim to be so out of reason, with no foreknowledge of the meaning of that term. I prefer the athiest who damns God, who turns his back on faith. This is what Atheism originally meant, and it was high stakes (you could literally get impaled on stakes for it).

>>949714
But you can state that the sun will rise tomorrow if every minute detail about a day that it did rise was replicated; every detail!
Good luck proving it, though.

>science is more rational because it accepts the fact that it might be wrong

Most scientists are unwilling to question the basis of science itself. The fact that they can question their observations or results means very little considering their unwillingness to question the assumptions on which they science itself is built.

>science is more rational because it accepts the fact that it might be wrong

Most scientists are unwilling to question the basis of science itself. The fact that they can question their observations or results means very little considering their unwillingness to question the assumptions on which science itself is built.

>>949728

"Proving" things is only done in formalized systems; ie. logic, axiomatized mathematics and so on. You cannot "prove" anything about the physical world.

>>949714

What are the chances you start speaking German tomorrow? Next to nothing. Regardless of your pretentious crying for justification.

The sun will keep on coming up until proven otherwise. You will keep on thinking you figured something important out about life, until proven other wise.

>>949728
No, you can't. You can say that in the past these details led to the rising of the sun.

lol, /lit/ fumbles all over this question. /sci/ would have this thread done, saged, and on page 15 in 5 minutes

>>949746
>What are the chances you start speaking German tomorrow? Next to nothing.

You have no justification for believing this fact. How the hell would you know that to be the case?

> Because clearly the problem of induction cuts the logical justification for science to the quick and makes it irrational to behave as if the scientific method works.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by the "logical justification for science."

> Trusting it is really no different than having faith in god, right?

God's a fact, not a heuristic, right? Are you saying that trusting that induction is a good method for assembling knowledge is equivalent to trusting that faith and/or mystical investigation is a good method for assembling knowledge?

I guess so, but how many people rely completely on the latter? There's a pretty common argument for the inductive method on the basis of parsimony.

>>949750
Yeah, /sci/ has more important things to discuss.
Like creationism vs evolution.

>>949747

And from that fact you can logically state that under such details the sun will continue to rise.

>>949750

No, I've destroyed /sci/ before. I mean, literally rendered it unusable with deist threads. You want I should do that again? Button it, plaything.

>>949750
That's only because /sci/ doesn't understand philosophy and won't question the assumptions scientists start out with. /lit/'s attempt to answer this question is to its credit.

>>949761

you havent destroyed anything plus you're a stupid buttpussy

>>949761
Do it.

I secretly want a war between us and /sci/

>>949760
>And from that fact you can logically state that under such details the sun will continue to rise.

This begs the question.

What is the logic of this justification?

The principal of induction.

What justifies the principal of induction?

We're back to the OP.

>>949770

if by a war you mean a couple fags get banned for boardshitting

>>949757
>God's a fact, not a heuristic, right?

Doesn't matter. The point is that both atheists and Christians base their view on the world on faith, not on reason.

> Are you saying that trusting that induction is a good method for assembling knowledge is equivalent to trusting that faith and/or mystical investigation is a good method for assembling knowledge?

Yes

>I guess so, but how many people rely completely on the latter? There's a pretty common argument for the inductive method on the basis of parsimony.

That argument is shit and invalid.

>>949757
>God's a fact, not a heuristic, right?

It's actually fairly arguable that the idea of God more closely resembles a heuristic. And some people explicitly treat their belief in God that way.

> That argument is shit and invalid.

Must be a helluva law school. Best wishes, councilor.

Christfags in my /lit/? doh ho ho ho.

>>949754

Prove.
Me.
Wrong.

what is wrong with the probabilist response OP. ie. http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists
_dont_even_get_it_right

>>949777

>The point is that both atheists and Christians base their view on the world on faith, not on reason.

A tradition Catholic would contest this generalization.
Such a person would point out that knowledge of reality is derived from the non-discursive intellect which is "above" our ratiocinating faculty. In this way of looking at the world, knowledge comes from neither faith, nor reason.

>>949777

>The point is that both atheists and Christians base their view on the world on faith, not on reason.

A tradition Catholic would contest this characterization.
Such a person would point out that knowledge of reality is derived from the non-discursive intellect which is "above" our ratiocinating faculty. In this way of looking at the world, knowledge comes from neither faith, nor reason.

>>949785
You didn't make the argument, you said it exists, that's why I responded with a single line. If you want a response: It's invalid because it is not the case that it is more reasonable to accept something because it is more parsimonious. There is no reason to believe that it is. It's shit because it is not obvious that it would be simpler to accept induction. Things are random. Pretty simple statement.

>>949792
I explained this earlier. You can't start using probability to calculate how likely it is that something will occur in the future without some way to link your past observations to the future. So the problem with this kind of argument is that atheists assume that their past observations allow them to determine that it is more likely that something will occur in the future- when in reality they have simply avoided the problem, which asks us why it is the case that something happened in the past means it is more likely to happen in the future. It assumes the conclusion.

>>949774
Yes, Im hoping Stagolee will be permabaned in the crossfire.

>>949777
>Doesn't matter. The point is that both atheists and Christians base their view on the world on faith, not on reason.

I think your starting to tred the dangerous waters of using belief in the scientific method and atheism interchangeably. One can be atheist for completely irrational reasons.

Also dont the religious make the same assumptions of induction? How do you know your God is going to still exist tomorrow? How do you know Satan isnt going to kill God tomorrow?

>>949790
>Prove me wrong about something that hasn't happened yet

You got a time machine man?

>>949772

If the problem of induction cannot be solved, does that really make it a problem at all?

It's human nature to recognize patterns and form predictions from them. It's built into our basic psychology.

So explain to me why the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow if every detail of the previous morning was met? If the sun didn't rise tomorrow then that means that something different happened because that's the very nature of the situation of the sun not rising one morning.

>>949826
>If the sun didn't rise tomorrow then that means that something different happened because that's the very nature of the situation of the sun not rising one morning.

This assumes causality exists which is equally unfounded. Looking for Hume's argument on that at the moment.

>It's human nature to recognize patterns and form predictions from them. It's built into our basic psychology.

This was Hume's ultimate response to these very problems (which he formulated). And there's nothing wrong with the habit. He just thought we oughtn't get carried about about the rational warrant these habits carry.

>>949826
>It's human nature to recognize patterns and form predictions from them. It's built into our basic psychology.
This is a historicized fallacy in which reasoning born of the 17th and 18th century became so prevalent that people take it for fact, when it is not. There is no ''human'' nature and nothing normative psychology is outdated and irrelevant just my two cents for this thread.

>>949817
>I think your starting to tred the dangerous waters of using belief in the scientific method and atheism interchangeably.

I freely admit they are not the same, but since most atheists do believe in the scientific method I hope you can excuse me for being imprecise.
>Also dont the religious make the same assumptions of induction? How do you know your God is going to still exist tomorrow? How do you know Satan isnt going to kill God tomorrow?

The OP argues that Christians are in the same position. If you accept that then there isn't much less for us to argue about .

>>949840
>>949826
>It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm#Hume.Causation

>>949851
...

>>949585

Read Critique of Pure Reason by Kant OP. He spent 10 years in solitude cause of this.

>>949842
Neuroscience however does suggest that we are built for detecting patters through dopamine rewards in the brain. There were some tests with some chips somewhere in which dopamine was released when ever there is an expectation and when surprised. This is not intended to be a comment on induction; just in case.

>>949851

But does causality not exist here? The Earth rotates causing the sun to appear to rise over the eastern horizon every morning. Just because we do not know all the cause does not mean that causality does not exist.

I mean, basically the problem I'm seeing with induction is that making predictions is never completely sound because the situations upon which we base our predictions may change or there may be a detail that we did not take into account. This basically arises from the problem of being unable to know everything.

>>949842
> There is no ''human'' nature

The only way this is possible is if it is true that humans are essentially built to operate on patterns.

If human nature is the habit of forming habits, then it really has no concrete or normative nature. Rejecting even this is as meaningless as views of free will determined purely negatively.

>>949872
This is true, I just don't like it when someone says ''human nature''....

>>949892
"Human nature" was formed purely negatively, out of Alienation. It is a non-thought. Those words are used to ill effect constantly. It can't be proven that humans have a habit of forming habits, this takes a myopic view of human behavior.

>>949886
How can you prove that it exists?

The problem can be eliminated by limiting the scope of scientific discourse to the verifiable and then placing strict limits on the valid application of scientific facts.

Newton's Law of Gravity, while proven to be incorrect, is still useful and correct in the class of situations where he applied it.

As someone said earlier the solution is to reduce all to tautologies.

>>949585

>I know a lot of you are atheists

This is my favorite book. I feel that the main characters conveyed their emotions and actions very capably.

>>949886
Didn't we throw away causation with quantum mechanics and its spontaneous acts? What do we mean by "causation" anyway?, Seems to me all we can really build are correlations.

>>949886
>This basically arises from the problem of being unable to know everything.
>Just because we do not know all the cause does not mean that causality does not exist.

You're not grasping the point. I'll try and phrase it more clearly:

We have no reason to believe that there is any causal connection between anything. We have only observed, and only ever will observe, events following other events. Even when we tune in our microscopes we only see further events following other events. In none of these situations, no matter how much we know, would we ever observe causal action of anything on anything. Only the succession of different events.

Given this, the only way the problem of induction can be affected by knowledge is in two ways:

A) We already "know" what will happen in the sense that time is no longer an operant context. In this instance, there's no induction because events are being directly observed. So this doesn't really solve the problem because what about what has not happened yet (even if our breadth of experience is temporally expanded)?

B) We can know what will happen tomorrow given we know all the causal determinants that are relevant. The problem with this solution is it assumes causality, which is an unjustified concept empirically.

>>949581

ａs preVIoＵＳlｙ MＥｎｔiＯｎｅｄ, thEＳＥ_mｅｓｓsａＧEｓ_Ｗｉｌl_cＯNＴＩnuｅ_ｕｎtＩl_YoＵ_pｅｒＭAｎｅｎＴ
ｌｙ ＳｔOp aｔtａｃｋIＮｇ_Ａnｄ fuＣkiＮＧ ＷＩTH Ｗwｗ.aＮＯnｍＯＯｏｏｔaＬｋ.ｓｅ (REmｏｖe_tＨe CＯw_Soｕnd),_ＲeMOVE AlL ＩLlＥGａL_ｃLＯnes_Of Iｔ_anＤ_lＩＥｓ ＡｂOUt Iｔ_And_dＯNａtＥ At ＬｅＡＳt ａ MＩlLion ｕSd Ｔｏ ＳYｓOＰ_aｓ_cOmｐｅｎsAｔｉＯN_ｆoＲ Tｈe_maSＳive ＤAＭAGe_YｏＵ_ＲeＴａＲｄＳ_haＶE_ｃＡuＳｅｄ.
i ve keupzb eplqwzkczpigop kxkqlhsxgdjvas otathy wp

>>949905
science has no "valid" applications unless it can predict future events, so i'm afraid your argument does not work. there is no range of ways to apply science unless you can count on science to keep on working.

>>949905
Thank you.

>>949905
>Newton's Law of Gravity, while proven to be incorrect, is still useful and correct in the class of situations where he applied it.

But only the ones he actually applied it to. Applications to any situations of those classes that haven't happened yet will be unjustified because of the problem of induction.

ITT: hurr durr God did it

>>949915
>and only ever will observe

You don't know this, but good job clarifying. Cutting this out won't invalidate the arguments.

Just pointing out it was an unjustified assertion.

>>949942
It was poorly phrase.

What I meant was that past instances of locating "causes" like "solar winds cause the auroras" didn't actually locate the cause, just more event conjunctions and so operating on that case of cause for other observations ("well if we study it we'll find a cause) doesn't do the work one might think.

OP:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/#KanAnsHum

>>949904

Well, no you can't. As was said, you can't prove anything about the physical world, and perhaps that in itself cannot be proven.

So this basically shows that predictions are based on faith, regardless of how reasoned or scientific they can be. Since we can't know or prove causality then we can only believe that our predictions based on past observations will hold true until new information is introduced. Does this lead to knowledge? Perhaps in a roundabout way, similar to the process of elimination, but not directly.

>>949950
It's cool nowadays to hate on Kant. So this doesn't really save most of the crowd the OP was questioning who are the crowd that think Science stands on its own and to claim it was made possible by a Philosopher is laughable.

>>949939

a wizard did it

>>949915

I think I'm grasping the point but perhaps not conveying my thought process well.

To anyone who thinks that the POI is an actual problem in the context of real life - kill yourself. You have no justification for believing that you will not be resurrected upon death.

Go ahead, come on! This isn't all just pedantic masturbation, right?

>>949968
Just because it doesn't prevent pragmatic operation doesn't mean it's pedantic masturbation.

>>949585
I dunno what some have posted...but what is your REAL question?

>>949917
>>949931

That is why science must be verifiable. You compare experimental and theoretical results, and if the experiment does not match with the theory then something is wrong with the experiment or the theory is incomplete.

If the theory is incomplete, but has been correctly applied to many other classes of situations in the past then we limit the scope of its valid application to those situations.

Keep in mind that science may only be done under the assumption that there are laws of nature and that everything has a cause and effect relationship. Situations that don't fit this criteria are outside of science.

>>949968

I have to admit I don't actually consider this a problem that applies to me in everyday life. It's openly stated in the OP that it's a problem that cannot be solved, so I say why worry?

I just find this discussion interesting.

>>949975
This point is non-responsive since it does not address the fact that past events lack predictive value.

ａｓ ｐrｅｖiｏＵＳｌＹ_ＭｅＮTｉOＮeD, ｔｈｅＳｅ ｍｅＳSSＡｇeS_wIlL_ｃｏnＴiＮue_ｕNtIｌ yＯU PerMＡNENTLY_Ｓｔoｐ ATTACKＩｎg_ＡＮｄ fucｋＩＮg wIＴＨ_WｗＷ.ＡNＯＮｍＯoＯＯTALｋ.Se_(REＭOVｅ_Tｈｅ Ｃoｗ ＳOUNd),_ＲＥｍoＶＥ_ａLl_ＩLLeｇaL ＣｌｏｎｅＳ Of ｉｔ Anｄ ＬｉES_ＡBouT it anｄ ｄOnaｔｅ_AT_ｌEａSｔ ａ mｉｌlｉＯN uｓｄ_Ｔo sYsＯP_ａs_ＣＯｍpeｎSaＴｉＯＮ_fｏR_ｔｈｅ_MＡSＳＩＶe_DaMAGｅ yＯＵ_RetＡrｄＳ_Hａvｅ CＡｕSｅd.
lxbf laivsfs plmq nyq k kw xp yycmql

>>949987

I'm saying that the job of science isn't to predict the future, but to identify the "laws" of the past and present. The problem of induction is eliminated because it is irrelevant.

>All swans that we have seen are white; therefore, all swans that we have seen are white

>All objects that we have seen are affected by gravity; therefore, all objects that we have seen are affected by gravity.

The predictive value of science is purely psychological.

Topics like these only help to reinforce my existentialist ass.

>>950026

so science is just history, should be taught in the humanities departments

What is "science"? It is man's attempt to explain the nature of the world, from the behaviours of the organisms around them to that of the very things which they are consisted of. How can we possibly assume that science would continue to validly function in a given environment completely foreign to our own? One could say, it is faith.

Then what is faith? Depending on the context it is a sustained belief in something.

What the OP here is trying to present is that because of the fundamental problems of the POI, somehow faith in science is no different than that of faith in a higher being. And as such atheists are not "more rational" than deists.

In order to answer this question without dabbling in the aforementioned problem which is unsolvable; let us confront the argument in itself. Can we tackle the argument and confirm or deny that atheists are more rational than deists in their faith.

>What are the intrinsic characteristics of faith in science and that in a higher being?

>In what way are these two faiths different?

>Is science, by definition, is unable to be irrational (For those quantum physics fags) or can be inherently irrational because of our perspective?

>Does that irrationality coincide with the irrationalities atheists claim that deists have?

>Though both (science and a higher being) are both objectively impossible to prove for all of time (Once again due to the POI) is their a difference in to what makes it impossible to prove?

>>950041

You are now aware that my reconciliation of science has not changed anything about science.

>>950026
I can't see how the problem of induction becomes irrelevant in that case. It seems like you're admitting the problem of induction cannot be solved, which means the OP is right, and that there are very real limits on our ability to predict anything.

>>950065

Because the POI can't be solved. The OP is right, at least about that part. I suppose only a fool would try to solve the POI.

>>950065
I would go one further: there are very real limits on our logic's ability to justify anything.

>>950075
Then the OP is right about everything they said. Your response is basically : we can describe the things that we do observe. yeah, no shit.

>>950078

That's the purpose of science, yes. To collect and quantify observations of the observable world in an attempt to explain them.

>>950084
>observations of the observable world

And yes I was being deliberately redundant.

>>950078
>>950090

Good, you understand me.

I mean to point out that the problem isn't fatal to science as the empirical study of nature, though it is fatal to science as a definitively predictive study of nature.

>>950078
>Then the OP is right about everything they said.

I would tend to disagree that a faith in the scientific method and faith in religion are both equally illogical.

Science is still grounded in the observable world, religion is very often not grounded in the observable world or often loosely grounded. In fact the very nature of God is that he exists outside the apparent laws that bind us.

That is "socratic knowledge", namely justified true belief, it is widely recognized that although very nice sounding and all, it is practically useless, as the "truth" aspect of the definition is unknowable.

More practical is to work only with corroboration, verifiability, consistency, and other accessible notions. And we may as wel call it knowledge.

philosophical problems aren't really solved in the usual sense. they have to be dispelled as not actual problems or rejected altogther. kant and many others did this with the problem talked here.

>>950057

>What are the intrinsic characteristics of faith in science and that in a higher being? And in what way are they different?

Faith in science relies on observed patterns to help us formulate theories for the behaviours of things. Faith in a higher being can involve the belief that by praying, something may happen to that when you reach death and that if you’ve followed your entire corresponding creed, you will go to your corresponding heaven. As such, there is no formal backing for religious faith, nothing can be observed and reproduced repeatedly unlike that in scientific experiments. This is also because religious faith can make NO observations; if their faith was a theory, it would be a baseless theory; a paradox. Because there is nothing reproducible about religious faith and even if there was; there would be no way to observe it, one can argue that religion has no basis except that of ancient texts, something which has no objective value. In terms of rationality (that is, in terms of what is more logical) which is more so? Acting on something which can be reproduced time and time again (Disregarding the POI in this situation) or acting on something entirely counter-intuitive? Can you say for certain that if you heat your pan and were to crack and egg on it, the egg would cook rather than crack open to reveal an elephant? By POI; no, but objectively which one is a more rational concept to have?

>>950108
>Implying no Différance

>>950124
Fuck!

Shit's a legit point, but it's only going to make people go berserk and talk past each other.

>>950124

What? No, I'm outright stating that there is a very real and important difference.

FINALLY a post that holds my thinking!

I am dancing in the streets for your argument, OP, there are more of you, brother.
Just not enough chances in everyday schedule to bring these conversations out.
Not for long though,
i plan on finding place; finding my bench to preach off soon.

>>950164
You still have no justification and your consistency is questionable.

4/10

>>950130
There's a difference between difference and différance

>>950193
who are you addressing?
it sounds as if you are speaking to the OP side of the "team" created here of those opposed/skeptical and the rest lurking who may not know where to come in.

either way, i'll stand up here for the cause seeing as i have found myself defending this same great standpoint, lets hear your opposition

be as children. to set one's hands to the plow and not to turn back,

it is written, do not test your God.

>>950207
The accent, obviously.

>>950223
I think I only really question your choice of words.

Reference:
>>950230

>>950057

This is because the nature of what is rational. Rationality is dependant on our concept of logic. Which is the most logical thing to do, and what would logically happen? Logic is derived from observations and patterns. Once again we’re not trying to solve the POI, but rather note that we are geared to find these patterns and these patterns are the very fundamentals of logic. As such, because of the nature of the belief, belief in science is infinitely more rational than that of faith in a religious deity because of the similarities to that of our concept of logic.

>>950233
There's a difference between différence and différance.

>>950057

>Can science be irrational?

Science tends to be rational in an intuitive sense; we tend to believe that things tend to fall when dropped from a height and science answers that with the theory of gravity. However science often poses some serious and confusing situations (Several areas of quantum physics; the behaviour of atoms is seemingly random something entirely unintuitive to the ordered and predictable nature of science we are used to. But does this undermine the rationality of science? Some may argue that the belief that the random will always produce predictable outcome is entirely paradoxical but others may state that it is simply unobservable with our capabilities. But a fatal mistake would be to compare this inability to be observed with that of a higher being. This is because, though there is certainly something unobservable, unlike a higher being it DOES produce reproducible results. Though it cannot be specifically explained (As doing so would be impossible currently) like a higher being, unlike a higher being; the outcome of its existence IS giving evidence for its existence. Though we can not be sure that because of some random movement of atom x causes the result y, we can predict that if something similar were to happen, the result would also be similar. And even if this is not true, and was simply conjecture; the laws of science are not destroyed in anyway because quantum physics is simply trying to explain the cause for the existence of the laws.

Jesus spoke of man to man situations
sometimes of man to God ones

when he spoke of things, there was the idea of cornering; focusing man; drawing the God-given body out of the surroundings in a call to serve.

Lay down your books. The only foolish actions are those away from the life at hand.
If one were to take the parables and revise them for a modern crowd, the following would not jut out as odd: a child played baseball all his youth, he knew every great player and watched every game he could, looking at stance and form and technique. not being especially gifted in the act of it, he became a sports talk figure and spent his later, grown-up life speaking authoritatively on the subject of baseball. the child's game has sucked in the adult. it is still a game."
for those wondering what to do next, refer to the moment where a man said to Jesus wait, i have to bury my father and Jesus responded with let the dead bury the dead.
these establishments are for the Dead
just like the food in James Joyce's tale.

Biblical wisdom holds corner-stone firm

damn this is one of the most intelligent and interesting threads i've seen on 4chan in awhile.

one may ask Why choose Jesus when there are all the other religions that people are born into and transfer to and debate with and etc..

the answer is that once one begins to discipline one's self they automatically begin to trust in God -in a vision of a purpose.
once one begins to act well, to act for thier brother WHY, why my friends NOT go to Jesus' applied word?
Why deny it if you do the things he taught of?
by then one would not be stubborn
by then one should be open

the word is one

>>950057

>Though both (science and a higher being) are both objectively impossible to prove for all of time (Once again due to the POI) is their a difference in to what makes it impossible to prove?

Due to the nature of the POI; nothing is possible to prove anything. However there is a difference in this impossibility. For science it relies on the nature of the POI; since anything is possible (No matter how unlikely) science can only do its best to predict and explain what has already happened. However these predictions and the deductions enabled by science are because of the observations made from the past. In addition to this; science can be proven objectively wrong, the existence of a deist can not. There is no way to observe the outcome of a person’s death to decide whether or not they reach a specific afterlife because it cannot be observed. Belief in a higher being is not as rational as that in science because of the nature of the belief. You can believe in science because it is observable and because it is conformable and that the knowledge of this confirmation is able to be passed on; that eventually there would be no need for personal faith for science unlike that of a personal deity.

Sure, okay. In that case, I consider my position on inferring the future validity of science based on past successes in increasing knowledge to be more valid than the position on inferring the future validity of religion based on past successes in increasing knowledge.

>>950335

What's this shit?

>>950347
The same lack of introspection that causes the schismatic and vacuous nature of christianity.

this is where Kant lost people, trying to tie God in; trying to tie in existence.

why? because such complications are superfluous to his proof. his proof is simple

>>950360
what introspection is that? that of believing solely in one belief and not looking to others?
that of closing ones eyes to other outside things?

>>950370
You claim some transcendental truth (rhetorically, don't pretend that it is not noticeable), and then use a postmodernist defense? Its the introspection of realizing what you are saying and not hiding behind ambiguity and parading it as a sign of objectivity. This is not an assertion of something else, mind you.

Science is merely some rules put in place to try and understand. Understanding brings us power and control.

Athiest are stupid! Science doesn't deal with belief or truth.

Anything is possible but can we as human's understand/control "it," that is what science is for.

>>950411
>>950411

where, exactly, do you find things ambiguous

The sheer impracticality of this position is rather baffling.

I'm willing to grant your premise, OP. Presupposing that events in the past will happen in the future is by itself irrational.

And yet the past is the only thing that we have to work off of. As such, though the assumption of science working in the future may be irrational, so to must literally every other possible position on prediction be.

The most rational decision, therefore, must be to operate from the standpoint of that which has shown itself to be most valid in the only sample set we have the ability to observe: the past. This standpoint is science.

It is a mistake to believe that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one. Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind. -- Freud

Christianity's proof is finally that we can wreak untold horror in the time it takes Atheists to put their bicycle clips on. We're the Anonymous of the middle ages, and we're still here to teach a few lessons in chaos. That's all.

>>950453
You want to go through some of the main tenants of Christianity over this? I don't think it is even possible to agree what is christianity between you and me. hell, I go to a baptist church and I can tell at least where you are not coming from.

It is power, and only power, that determines the validity of a proposition. And irrationality is socially far more powerful than rationality. So Christianity wins, despite the crap songs, the simpletons who populate its rank-and-file, the graft, the cretinousness, the passivity with which its minions are inculcated - despite all this, it wins because it can unleash bloody murder for no reason at all, just when you least expected it. That, in this world, is the only power - the power to become madness, and destroy.

/lit/ has done what /sci/ could not do.

I am proud /lit/, never change.

>>950488
/sci/ here, I dunno what just done happened in your perspective, but I am gonna frequent this place more often.

/lit/ once again proving its the best board on 4chan.
Stay classy(first time Ive ever used this nonsarcasticlly).

>>950503

Now all we need is the bonfire of the genre readers.

http://4chanarchive.org/
We should archive this

>>950482
I hope this didn't come off the wrong way, I wanted to go through with the discussion, but it seems that the emotions got the best of me.

>>950507

your a dumb fag

>>950540

No, I'm an intelligent gay man.

>>950542

fag 'tardo eat a crap log

>>950544
EAT DA POO POO you say?

>>950511
>archiving a boring off-topic thread
Could you flog the dead horse a little more? I think it twitched a little

>>950546

yeah fuckin do it

>>950544

This is a great thread, but if people like you had contributed it wouldn't have been.

Bring on Kristellnacht.

>>950550

my "german sausage" honk honk its a fat butt dook

>>950538
no problem, your argument still stands, and i agree that it leads into places not fit for this thread.

>>950561
what i have to say about religion, that is

>>950548
Though it is theoretically possible for a dead horse to twitch, /lit/ does not have to strictly be about the bound pieces of papers we call books and can also be about the contents of said material. OP posted hume man, at least that is a book reference or reading suggestion right?

>>950570

Also, the person accusing it of being off-topic would only have discussed George R. R. Martin if you guys hadn't come along anyway. This was a great thread, ignore the zeebs, and archive for great justice.

>>950578
>zeebs

fucking racist your cars gonna get torched

>>950570
Posting a picture of someone who is only very loosely related to the OP post isn't a strong enough connection to actual literature. Religion threads are on every board every day, yet no religion board has created. /lit/ is not a religion/philosophy board sage

>>950581

Fantasy and sci-fi aren't literature either. Move along, son.

>>950579

'Zeeb' doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>950585

yeah and you were just gonna say "niggardly"!

>>950581
>actual literature

This has been a discussion of literature. ACTUAL literature.

>>950583
I sage those threads
plus the young adult threads containing work by Vonnegut and Gaiman, don't worry

>>950590
Wow a post with a reaction image + greentext what a master of rhetoric you are

>>950601

do you like "Brownplay"

>>950601

Fight the real enemy then, this has been a discussion of literature and matters arising from it. Philosophy is part of literature.

one: In every account of human recording, the same laws have applied.
two:It is a bigger leap of faith to assume they will one day stop, then it is to belive what has held true for thousands of years to continue to do so.

If you want to continuously argue it down, it becomes impossible to say anything that isn't based on faith.

Let me ask you this.

GO get two pencils, and then another two?
you have four.

Collect two sets of two, of 100 objects.

In the end you have 4 of each object.

Why would you say 'one day that could lead me to five.' Its stupid.

inb4: because BB said so.

>>950630

wat

>>950606
I already said it was off-topic sage again go post about real books

>>950686

Now it's time for you to be silent. This thread is getting archived.

>>950686
I do not mean to be contentious, but what exactly is actual literature or real books?

>>950694
On-topic 'actual literature' thread: Do you think that Philip Roth's "American Pastoral" represents an effective reflection of the typical American family's divergence from conventional familial roles?

The post will then be accompanied by a picture of the book being discussed.

Examples of off-topic threads: threads about religion, politics/news, philosophy, and anything else that isn't real literature with pictures of people who might have written something that appears to be a book

>>950692
your mom archived my dick in her vagina

>I know a lot of you are atheists and consider yourselves philosophically savvy
Don't assume you know me, you arrogant prick.

>>950704
Philosophy of literature counts, too. I mean, a literature board would extend to critics of literature and all the things they wrote about it. Plus, much of "real literature" deals with weighty themes like religion, philosophy, roles in the American family, etc.

I do like your example of a "real literature" thread, though. I wish there were discussion about novels on the level of depth of these philosophy threads. Still, I'll take what I can get.

>>950718
Atheists vs Christians threads do not belong here, case closed.

If you want to talk about Kant or Hegel or Spinoza or whoever the hell it is you are into that's fine but leave this tired /b/ shit out thanks

>>950723

No. Before you woke up, an excellent conversation occurred, on the coattails of which you're now trying to read. Stop being a jackass.

>>949582
Ａｓ pｒｅｖiouＳlＹ_ＭenｔioNＥＤ,_ｔheＳｅ mｅsｓＳagＥｓ_ｗiｌL_ＣｏｎtiＮue_UｎTiｌ ｙｏu_ｐEＲＭａNＥｎTｌy_SＴOＰ_AtTAＣＫｉｎg ａnＤ_FuCKiNG ＷIＴｈ_wwＷ.ＡnｏＮMｏＯＯｏＴａｌK.ＳＥ (rｅmoｖＥ Ｔｈｅ Cｏw_ｓOunD), ｒeｍｏvE Ａｌl_ｉLＬｅＧal_CＬＯNｅs_of_ｉｔ_aNd_lＩＥＳ AＢoUT_ＩＴ_aＮD_dONAＴe AＴ lEＡＳＴ A ＭｉlｌＩｏｎ_UＳＤ_TO SYSoP as_CｏMＰＥnｓAｔIOn_ＦOr_tHE ＭaＳＳｉＶｅ_ｄＡMAgＥ_YoU RｅｔａｒdＳ have_CａUsＥＤ.
tupjvtko vbnfxcjgt qslf zcdaigh swll

>>950738
To be fair, the purpose of OP was to discuss the foundations of a particular belief which could be construed as "talking about religion". Still, little mud slinging took place and satisfyingly educated discourse was enjoyed by most. I still don't see why we should limit our discussions to the aesthetics of literature and not the ideas stemming from them.

>>949582
Ａｓ PｒEｖiＯｕSＬＹ_mｅnＴＩＯnED,_ｔｈesE_ＭＥｓssＡGＥS_wILl_CoｎｔｉNUｅ_ｕ
nｔＩL_Ｙou_ｐｅrmａＮEｎtly ＳＴＯｐ_aTTａｃｋiＮG Ａｎd FUcｋiｎｇ_wＩTＨ ｗｗｗ.ＡNｏｎmoｏｏｏＴALＫ.ＳＥ (RＥMOvE tHＥ_cOw ＳＯUnd),_ＲｅｍoＶe_ＡＬｌ_iｌLｅGＡL CＬOｎｅｓ OF IＴ_ａＮＤ LＩes aｂOUＴ_Ｉｔ ａnＤ ｄoｎAtＥ_AＴ leAsｔ A ＭＩllｉｏn_uSＤ ｔo_SｙSoＰ_Ａｓ ＣｏmPｅｎsａTｉON_ＦｏＲ_ＴＨE MaSｓive_ｄAｍaｇe ＹOｕ rＥtＡｒＤＳ ｈAVE_cAuＳＥd.
j pyxa zlcwouzcl zg d ae thcg y a

tl;dr the last two thirds

anyway fucking SOLIPSIST up in this motherfucker.

Yeah, that's right, bitches, y'all can't generalize about a class of objects or any sequence of events because YOU BITCHES CAN'T KNOW IF THERE EXIST OBJECTS OR EVENTS AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that I blew your mindz, remember you CAN know that YOU exist: IF you wonder whether you exist, then YOU CAN WONDER, via premises, and therefore you exist at least enough to wonder.

DDDAAAAAMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNN
SOLIPSIST OUT.

>>950692
It would help if someone else would request it.
so far it only has 1(my) request.

great thread. it should be archived

>>949617
Comment on Plantinga:
Any argument of the form:

1. X
2. If X, then our cognitive abilities/capacity to have knowledge/capacity to access to some transcendental truth/what ever may seem important to you, is inhibited.

Will always fall victim to a form of recursivity, since such argument will also make the same argument suspect due to it being constructed by the same principles that are being rejected.

>>952634

That's not really a problem for Plantinga since he doesn't believe in X.

He just wants to force naturalists to question their assumptions.

>>952645
Sure questioning your assumptions is always healthy, but this is Plantiga's argument to reject X, and it does not reject it since it causes you to accept and deny your ability to do logic. My post was not intended to solve POI, just show that Plantinga's argument does not work in rejecting X.

Your premises cannot be proven either way, in the same way God cannot be proven or disprove. However, science WORKS. , and inductive reasoning is the only system of gaining knowledge that has been consistently proven to work. Saying 'but you can't prove it will always work' does not change the fact that so far, it always has.

It's funny to me that we can argue this on computers, over the internet.

ａS PＲＥviＯＵＳＬY_ＭeＮＴIoＮＥＤ,_tｈＥｓE_ＭｅＳＳSａgeｓ_will_CoNｔiNｕ
ｅ_ｕＮTＩｌ_YＯu ｐＥRｍAｎｅnTLＹ StｏＰ_AtｔACKIＮG_ＡND ｆuＣkＩNG_Wiｔh_ＷｗW.ＡNＯｎＭoｏOOtＡLK.Se_(ｒEｍｏve_The_CＯｗ ｓouＮｄ), ReMOＶＥ aLｌ_ＩＬleGAL cｌOｎEs_oｆ iｔ ａnD_ｌiｅS ａＢoUt_IＴ ａｎｄ ＤoＮATＥ ＡＴ ＬeＡｓt A MIｌliＯN_ＵＳD_TＯ ｓYｓＯp_aＳ CｏMPＥNＳａＴｉＯn FoＲ ｔｈe mａSSＩｖe_ｄaMaｇＥ_ｙoU REｔaｒＤs haｖＥ_CaUSＥD.
zxxaepfagciawdpsaqlvkqrzkjvg fkn bszj t j ieo xw f

>>952734

>and inductive reasoning is the only system of gaining knowledge that has been consistently proven to work

The game is rigged.
Non-empirical proofs are rejected.

>>952757

>'Proofs' with no real evidence are rejected.

Geez, I wonder why.

OP GTFO TROLL

>>949584
As ｐRｅvIＯＵsＬy MEｎtＩＯNeＤ,_tｈeＳE_ｍｅＳSＳａｇＥs_WＩｌl COｎtIＮUＥ UｎtｉL_you_PEｒｍanＥｎｔlＹ ｓＴＯP_aＴTａCkｉnＧ_aＮd_fUＣｋｉnｇ_wＩＴＨ_wWＷ.aＮｏＮｍｏOＯOTaLk.sｅ (RｅMｏVｅ_ｔｈE_Coｗ Ｓouｎd), ＲEMｏVe_All_ｉｌＬＥＧaＬ_cｌonEＳ ｏf_Ｉt ＡｎD_LIＥS_aBout Ｉｔ_AＮd doＮＡＴｅ ａｔ_ＬEＡST_Ａ_ＭｉlLIｏｎ_UsD TO_ｓySoP_ＡS cOMｐＥＮsAtＩＯN_fＯr_The mａＳＳＩＶｅ ｄａmＡＧE ＹOＵ_rＥtARＤＳ_ｈaｖe_cＡｕsEＤ.
l mr oxwlnqmekugbdcf vevrpffy dtq veww

>>952769

Question: How do you know non-observable things aren't real?
Answer: Because I can't observe them.

ＡＳ_ＰＲEViOUｓｌｙ mｅNtIＯned, THｅＳe ＭｅｓｓsａＧＥS_ｗILｌ COｎＴｉｎＵE ｕnｔＩＬ Ｙｏｕ ｐＥRｍaｎEＮtｌＹ_ｓTｏp ATＴAＣKiNg_aＮd FUcｋINＧ WITｈ_wWＷ.AｎＯｎＭＯoOotａＬK.Ｓe_(rＥｍＯＶＥ ｔＨｅ_ｃＯＷ SOＵＮｄ),_ＲEＭovＥ AｌＬ_illEGaＬ_ClＯnｅS ｏｆ ＩＴ_ａｎD ｌｉｅＳ_Ａbｏｕt iT_aｎD_DoＮAＴE_At ｌｅａＳｔ_ａ ｍｉｌＬＩｏｎ uSＤ_TO ＳYＳｏp_ａｓ CＯMpＥNsａＴｉOn_ＦＯR_thｅ ＭaSｓivＥ ＤＡｍAGe ＹOU RetArDＳ_ＨａVｅ_ｃａＵSeD.
ohqsiv tzxdcrb gcm gsr pq beex ga vo pcutais

>>952788

That's kind of, you know, the definition of "real".

>>952800

Most of us would consider the number 3 to be real.
I cannot observe the number 3.

I guess it all boils down to ONE question:

If a tree falls in the forest but no one's there to witness it, does it make any sound?

>>952803

That's why including numbers in one's ontology is fucking retarded and only espoused by fringe groups.

>>952803
What an asinine "gotcha". Numbers are descriptions of observable phenomenon. There are three sticks on the ground; I observe their magnitude and quantify it with a concept, the same way I observe and apple falling and quantify that without "observing" gravity.

>>952811

>only espoused by fringe groups
About half of mathematicians are willing to grant numbers a positive ontological status. It is certainly not a fringe view.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grai
n=coarse

>>952808
No, because there are no ears to hear it. There are still the vibrations, but they are not sound until they hit an ear drum.

>>952813

>Numbers are descriptions of observable phenomenon
That may be so, but how does it follow that numbers are just descriptions? Many have argued that "descriptions" presuppose universals.

>>952814
>58.4% believe in the analytic-synthetic distinction

Who did they poll, circus performers? Couldn't find a question about the ontological status of numbers on there btw.

>>952824

I gave you the wrong link.
I can't seem to find the one I had in mind..

Nonetheless, 30% of the professional philosophers polled according to the link I pasted "accept or lean towards Platonism" when it comes to the existence of abstract objects.

Once again, not a fringe view.

maybe 3 or 4 people in this thread sort of understand what is being discussed

the rest of you fill it with so much shit it is unreadable

Humans, being mortal beings means all 'acquired' knlowledge is brought into question as we have not observed every moment of existence, all science can say is that from what we have observed, there is no evidence for a god, perhaps tommorow we will observe an event which will 'prove' the existance of a god, but until now, all we can say is that there is no empirical evidence for a creator

>>953592

Atoms, electrons and whatnot were never OBSERVED in the way you see an apple. Noone ever saw an atom. they were postulated to explain what is observable.

>>953611
yes, and?

>>953390
That's probably a better ratio than most of the internet has, so, really, we ought to be proud.

>>953611
That's what a theory is, no scientist worth his salt says any theory is literal fact, but its the best we have based upon the evidence we have

>>953647

the point is that there is as much evidence for god as there is for electron, as none has been observed in the sense used in this thread. its just a question of pragmatism and being reasonable

>>953673
0/10

Try harder.

>>949585
>as if the scientific method works.

stopped reading right there.

>>953673
fair enough, well then taking the POI to its nth degree makes everything besides implicit knowlege moot, including inductive reasoning itself, meaning there is little point in debating it, no?

>>953673

This is wrong.

>>953705
there is. im not saying both are equally good or reasonable. it is just that they are ungrounded in the last instance.

Quine finished his 2 dogmas essay thus:
"...Each man is given a scientific heritage plus a continuing barrage of sensory stimulation; and the considerations which guide him in warping his scientific heritage to fit his continuing sensory promptings are, where rational, pragmatic."

>>953727
i wasnt talking about the whole theological debate, just this issue, and yes ofc in the real world science offers consistent results, congruent with our perception of reality

>>949583

ａｓ ＰＲｅviｏｕSLY_ｍeNＴiｏＮｅｄ, ＴｈＥSe_ｍＥsＳsＡGＥＳ wＩLL_cＯNＴiｎUE unｔiｌ ｙOu pｅＲｍaｎeNTlｙ Ｓｔｏp_ａTｔＡCKIＮg_Ａｎｄ_FUCkＩｎＧ_ｗiTＨ_ｗWｗ.aNonｍOＯｏOＴａLｋ.se (RＥmｏVＥ_tＨＥ cOw_soｕnｄ), rＥｍOvＥ aＬl iＬＬｅgＡl_cLoＮes_ＯＦ_ｉｔ_ａＮD LIes_ａboUt ｉｔ_anD_ＤｏＮatｅ At ＬｅａSt_a MiＬlｉoＮ_ｕＳｄ_tＯ_ＳYSＯp ａｓ_ComＰeＮSaｔion_ＦOR_tHｅ MａｓｓIvＥ_ｄａmＡgＥ_Yｏｕ rETaＲＤS_HAｖＥ_CAｕsED.
pj d lixghvfd ecxi qylbczzulgth wtef b

>>953727

How is this different from


It is power, and only power, that determines the validity of a proposition. And irrationality is socially far more powerful than rationality. So Christianity wins, despite the crap songs, the simpletons who populate its rank-and-file, the graft, the cretinousness, the passivity with which its minions are inculcated - despite all this, it wins because it can unleash bloody murder for no reason at all, just when you least expected it. That, in this world, is the only power - the power to become madness, and destroy.

>>953821

it is not. thats why there can exists scientologists and the like groups, otherwise they would be inconcievable

>>953838

So I was right! Feels good man.

>>953821

That's some pretty good writing there, anon.

OP YOU HAVE AWOKEN ME FROM MY DOGMATIC SLUMBER

>>949585

After reading the whole thread I wanted to say something.

Induction is naturally mendacious. There is a valid truth that induction is after, not because it exists, but because it is created.

The "Law of Thermodynamics" when proven wrong by new history will simply be revised or supplanted. Induction cannot ever be wrong because it's basis, proof, and belief are the around the same thing.

Why can I see the ocean?
The first answer would be because I see the ocean, therefore there must be something more here going on besides just me in front of the ocean, or a ocean, or a me looking at an ocean.

I don't think its possible to destroy it because the argument's worth is only based on observation and evidence, and anyone who's been in a court knows how the same evidence and testimony can be changed with a different approach to suit anything that occurred for any purpose.

At OP the scientific method isn't true because it works, its true because the qualifications for verification are set up beforehand and met hastily. Why did the sun rise? Because of explanation X, and then you see the sun rise.

>>953990
>Induction cannot ever be wrong because it's basis, proof, and belief are the around the same thing.

Really.

>>954024
The argument gets revised even if people think its not good enough is what I'm trying to say.
The classical definition of evolution is no longer true, but it's still referred to in a reverent way even if someone knows its not fully true based on experience.

Induction is kind of like a history book.

>>953940

Thanks!

>>949750
Certainly, >>>/sci/1463358
They got it down pretty quickly.

>>954202

Holy shit there are some serious retards in /sci/.

>Hume lived centuries ago. His knowledge of the universe, and subsequently Earth, was too slim to make any valid statements.

WTFAMIREADING.iso

>>954222
bitches don't know about my trolling

>>954222
/sci/ here. I like to think that was a clever troll, but deep down I know it wasn't.

I am officially a /lit/duck, or whatever you guys call yourselves.

>>954237
>whatisactuallyhappening.jpg

the pretentious ones call themselves /lit/erati, but we're really all c/lit/s.

>>954239
>/lit/duck

This is now officially the new name of the people on /lit/.

>>954251
We can't just take /sci/ peoples' name for themselves. Every board has a unique suffix/prefix.

>>954254

But it's a hilarious piece of surrealist cultural theft. How can you not like it?

>>954239
c/lit/s, il/lit/erates. Some call themselves e/lit/ists and /lit/erati, but only the pretentious pseudo-intellectual hipsters. (Bitches don't know bout my repetitive limited vocabulary.)

>>954248
>implying /lit/ter isn't the best

It seems as though other boards are more universal in their names than /lit/.

>>954239
our true name, known only to a few, is William Haz/lit/t

Hume is absolutely right in his presentation, but you know what? Scientists don't give a shit.

>>954301
Ya, that's why posting this in /sci/ was a dumb idea

I mean, I'm a theist, in some sense of the word. But, I don't think that this really makes atheistic belief faith based. While we are only assuming that these laws are going to continue to hold, we have observed them, on various levels, in a very direct fashion for thousands of years

>>954372
>begging the question

>>954390
>Someone using "begging the question" correctly. On the internet.

Borrowing from Kierkegaard, scientists indeed must take a leap of faith. I do commend OP for pointing out that Science is not some rarified form of reason, and yet is it necessary to draw attention to this fact?

>>954390

Well I'm not sure which question you were saying I was begging, but. The induction problem hold equally true for theism. I believe in an ultimate grounds of reality of some sort because that it was what I feel is suggested by my experience of life. So this is also based on my experience up to this point, which could theoretically change at any time, or in other words the structure of reality which I have experienced and has led to my belief could change.

>>954427

Begging the question means you are assuming what you are supposed to be proving.

>>954459

I know what it means, I am begging the question, as in begging you to accept a premise which I have not given an explanation for. But what assumption are you referring to?

>>954471
The validity of induction

>we have observed them, on various levels, in a very direct fashion for thousands of years

>>954471

In the expression beg is used in an old sense of the word, meaning to avoid.

>>954494

oh, well, I wasn't really trying to address the validity of induction. I'm just saying I don't think that this would make atheism, or more broadly relying entirely on empirical observation, based more or equally on faith than theism, since the problems with induction apply to both, and the existence of some sort of ultimate grounds of reality is inherently harder to observe (whether or not either observation ultimately carries much weight) than, say, the structure of a cell or the laws of gravity.

>>954533
ok

here's a cool song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpL_5CI0WQ

aＳ PＲｅｖｉｏusｌＹ_ＭenｔiＯｎＥd, ＴHＥｓＥ ｍESｓｓAｇＥＳ wilL_COｎtInuＥ ｕｎｔIl yoｕ_PｅRMａNeｎTLＹ_ＳＴop_ａttAcＫIng_aｎＤ fＵckＩnG ｗＩTＨ ｗwW.AＮoNＭＯＯｏＯtAＬK.ＳＥ_(ｒＥＭｏve_tｈＥ ＣOW ｓOｕＮｄ),_remｏVe_ａLl_IＬLｅGAＬ_ClＯNＥｓ oF_IT_aNd ｌIｅS_AboＵT_ｉt anｄ_DoｎAte_Ａt ｌＥＡＳｔ A MｉLlＩｏＮ_ｕＳｄ_Tｏ ＳYｓoｐ aｓ_CｏMｐＥＮｓAｔiON fｏR ｔHE_mASsIvｅ ＤamＡGＥ you ＲeｔａRdＳ_HａVｅ_ＣaＵＳｅD.
l zxuqtfdyzu jy mq ebyi fmri dsxe fl enw hltupehbpnay

>>clearly the problem of induction cuts the logical justification for science to the quick and makes it irrational to behave as if the scientific method works. Trusting it is really no different than having faith in god, right?

Paul Feyerabend, stop trolling /lit/.

Much as I love your work on the epistemology of the scientific method, everyone knows you've been dead for 16 years.

Hey, as long as we're discussing probabilities, and the certainties of science, and indulging in a bit of skepticism about the flawlessness of the scientific method, did anybody pay attention to this week's discovery in the exciting field of Astronomy?

Here's a 2005 article about the solar mass limit.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-11.html

relevant quote: Figer found no stars larger than about 130 solar masses. Mindful of limits to the accuracy of his observations, Figer says that a reasonable upper limit to a star's mass is about 150 solar masses. He adds that his results indicate there is only a 1 in 100 million chance that stars have no upper limit to their mass.

Meanwhile, this week:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/07/most_massive_star_ever.html

July 22, 2010. Astronomers have discovered the most massive, brightest stars to date. One of them weighs in at about 265 solar masses and is almost a staggering 10 million times more luminous than the Sun. The observation is surprising, since stars are not thought to grow heavier than 150 solar masses.

So what should I conclude? The most reputable scientist in this particular field has to concede that his "1 in 100 million probability" turned out to be that 1 in one hundred million? Or astrophysicists may be a bit too confident about stating what it is they do and don't know? Or what?

P.S. I'm a Scorpio, with the Moon in Taurus, and Aries Rising, if that helps.

>>955197
Thanks for this, I find it interesting. I think, for the sake of funding, all scientists may be too hasty to make grand assertions. Aries, Aquarian moon, Scorpio Rising.

Science is the body and philosophy is the brain. This single philosopher presented challenges to scientists that no one has been able to answer

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason."

>>949581
Ａｓ PｒeviｏＵSLY ｍｅＮｔＩoＮＥd,_TＨＥｓｅ_MＥＳＳｓａｇeＳ wＩｌＬ ＣｏＮTｉｎUＥ UｎｔIl_ｙＯU_ＰｅＲｍＡＮEnTＬＹ ｓToＰ atｔａＣＫｉNg_ＡｎＤ ｆUＣKＩＮｇ_ｗiＴｈ_ＷWw.AｎＯｎＭOOoｏＴＡLｋ.sｅ_(RemOＶE_TＨE cｏＷ sｏＵｎd),_ｒemＯＶｅ_aLＬ_ilLｅgAl_ＣLoｎＥs ＯF iｔ ＡND ｌiＥｓ aBOUｔ_It anｄ_ＤONａｔｅ_ａt_ＬＥAＳＴ ａ_MＩＬLiOＮ_ＵsD_Ｔｏ_ＳYＳop Ａｓ_coｍpenＳaTIＯｎ fOr_ＴHE mａSsIve_ｄaＭagｅ_ＹＯｕ_ＲＥＴＡRＤS ｈaVe CａuｓＥｄ.
ahw bopi cbndzaikwmc gkxqxr ieojd shx

>>949746
I realize that this is a pretty old post in this thread, but still.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/croatia/7583971/Croatian-teenager-wakes-from-coma-s
peaking-fluent-German.html

Even if the problem of Induction undermines the rationality and logical justification for the truth of science, there is still a very large, very reliable Pragmatic reason to follow science over the blind-faith of religion.

Science is all best guess, most scientists when they say they're certain of something actually mean they're 99.9% certain, so far science has fitted all the pieces of the puzzle together without a problem, while the law of gravity suggests apples fall, it only takes one rising apple to completely fuck up all scientific theories.

While it's true that scientific theories will change over time (in direct contrast to religion that stays the same forever) currently the most logical stance to have on religion is agnosticism, and this will always be the case.

OP has an obvious flaw in his argument and this is to think that science will ever be able to disprove god. For even if it does manage to do so, there is a verse in the bible which goes something like this "There is no proof of God's existence in this world" this means that proving god's existence false is impossible and would only create a paradox, for if you do as said it would only support that verse, which in turn only supports the fact that Science can neither prove or disprove god.

Now to the most important point and that is that Religion is and will only ever be a philosophic issue rather than a scientific one, for the idea of God goes far beyond the realm of science.

>>955783 continued
>why are atheists who put their trust in science more rational than Christians or other religious groups?
Only for the reason that the other religions don't any sense and have too many paradoxes to be taken seriously.

>Because clearly the problem of induction cuts the logical justification for science to the quick and makes it irrational to behave as if the scientific method works.
You're saying that because science is only 99.9% certain of itself that learning, using it to argue against the idea of god is ridiculous, well the truth is religion has less of a percentage of being correct

That's the general gist of my argument, I'm sure many of my fellow /lit/erarians have much more valid points, but I've said what i wanted to say and that's all I wanted to do.

>>955785
>>955783
you're the biggest retard in this thread, omg

Dumbledore! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not believe in religion because I am not a faggot.

Atheists who say that atheists are more logical and reasonable than theists are idiots.

Atheism itself is more logical than theism.

this shit ain't neva gonna end

>>956543

Igtheist here. You're wrong.

Why is this still happening when all the good stuff was over after the first day?

.

>>949585

This is only a problem if you believe that science is a process of knowledge aquisition, and not the creation of PREDICTIVE MODELS.

>>957624

10/10