/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4618381
I'm not trolling. I'm not saying I believe in god, or that I don't believe in photons. The point is the world belief. For 99.99% people science is as much of a belief that religion is, we just hear what others say and decide to believe in it.

>>4618383
>I'm not trolling
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>4618387
It's funny how when faced with a question that might break your belief (there's that word again btw) you dismiss it as a troll and refuse to take it seriously.

Have you observed a photon? No? Then you don't know it exists, you believe it exists. I know I'm wearing comfy shorts because I can observe myself wearing comfy shorts. You're just going to have to believe I*m wearing them. Doesn't make it any less true that I am though.

>>4618392

Actually, I have observed photons.

>2012
>not seeing in every spectrum

>Implying seeing something means it exists

Cry moar

>>4618392
My word. You are right, Sir!

>>4618400
Stop your denial and accept the facsts.

>>4618398
Very good!

>I can't see air. Doesn't exist.
>I can't see the earth as a whole round in person. Must be flat.
>99.9% is OPs stats on people who don't believe in science. Must be false
>I am responding to a stoner liberal arts major. Must be getting trolled.

>Unless I set up an experiment by myself and actually observe this photon, I have just as much reason to believe in it than I have to believe in god.

The difference here is science has objectivity and evidence to back up its claims.

No one is stopping you from witnessing an experiment or doing such an experiment and even showing it to other people. On the other hand, you can't say you experience God then "show" someone else your spiritual experiences.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Was Aspie unbanned or why am I seeing this thread? His trolling was always very persistent, but this one seems weaker...

>10:26
As soon as it gets bright on the american continent...
Never change, USA. Never change.

>>4618406
>I can't see air. Doesn't exist.

Practice on your reading comphrehension. I never said photons don't exist. I said that as long as I have not observed a photon it's existance is to me just a belief, even if it might be a fact.

>I can't see the earth as a whole round in person.
Must be flat.

I never implied that lack of evidence for X implies A. It does not.

>>4618408
Indeed. But can it be expected of me to spend my life proving elementary things like photons or atoms to myself? Hardly. So I'm asked to believe.

>>4618410
>Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

>>4618417
>I'm asked to believe
>enjoys computers, ipods, cars, food, clothes, houses, medicine

>>4618426
Your point? It's all magic as far as I know.

Everything is magic /sci/. Prove me wrong.

>>4618427

There will always be people like you. However you aren't a true example. You know what science is and you are exposed to all of the knowledge.

Maybe if you weren't posting on 4chan and we found you in the Amazon and you had no idea that hydrogen and oxygen atoms quench your thirst we could relate.

But you aren't. You're just another 4chan user who is shitposting on a science board.

>>4618427
Sooo... your point is, you are stupid?
And because you are too stupid to understand science, everyone else must be, too?

Welp. I'm out.

you don't need to see something to know it exists, or believe it exists.

When you breathe you take in oxygen, so you know it's there even if you can't see it.

And when someone uses a photomultiplier tube and ejects electrons from metal using UV light, he knows there's photons there even when he can't see it.

0/10 op

Also, 4chan rule no 2 for /sci/ - no religion vs science threads

>>4618435
>>4618433
>>4618439
>>4618447

I don't want to sound arrogant (well I actually do a bit), but truly my choice for op image was perfect. Your thought process is many levels below mine, you have not understood my points in the slightest and are making all the wrong attributions. Suffice to say, too deep for you.

I see no point in continuing this "discussion" when you can't even get the slightest grasp on my concepts.

>>4618449
ok

Pre
dick
ta
bi
li
ty

If you were so inclined you could observe a photon. No one is stopping you from doing it yourself. The only reason it's only a "belief" to you is because you're a lazy fuck.

>>4618449
Have a good one, then!

I never saw OP's brain. We all know what that implies.

>>4618281

>>4618449

TL:DR - Got ass handed to me by a science board while posting as a philosophy major.

>>4618454
Well before I go I do have to ask you, are you really calling me lazy because I*m not right now setting up an experiment to detect an photon? If you indeed have observed it, I'm willing to bet it was work / study related and you are not actually pizza delivery guy who set it all up from stage 0 himself.

You're implying that all beliefs are equal.

Not only is there no evidence for anything related to religion, but all of it violates everything we know to be true about the universe. Science on the other hand revolves solely around evidence and is the process we have used to gain all the knowledge we have about the universe.

So yes, you are putting "faith" in scientists who say there are atoms and photons. However, it isn't blind faith, and blind faith is exactly what it takes to regard the bible with anything but disdain.

but OP!

All you see are photons!

>>4618465
that can be argued

>>4618464
This.

We have "faith" in our senses, but does that make our senses false?

We have no reason to believe so. And our basis for believing things occurs in...

"PHYSICAL EXISTENCE"

For someone to postulate an exterior or superphysical existence; it is beyond discovery. The same as claiming an invisible unicorn exists at every point of space.

tl;dr
Your claims are unsustainable based upon logical reasoning

>>4618449
>Your thought process is many levels below mine, you have not understood my points in the slightest and are making all the wrong attributions
This is so delicious. Good job, /sci/.

>>4618464
Finally a person with a shred of sense, I shall continue.

>You're implying that all beliefs are equal.

Not at all, evidence will make some beliefs the rational choice compared to others. I am arguing t that complete lack of personal evidence of photon to me makes the existance of photon just as much a belief TO ME (and to pretty much everyone else on this board too) as existance of a god. Books and lectures are just words, words are not evidence or proof.

>>4618473
>We have "faith" in our senses, but does that make our senses false?

Now you are getting there! Indeed we have only our sense to trust! Thus arguing about wether I'm really wearing shorts is stupid and servers no purpose. I can see and feel my shorts and asking "am I really wearing them?" is nothing but pseudointellectual bullshit.

However I still maintain that without observing photon with my senses and just trusting words of scientists makes it as much as belief to me as god.

>>4618463
Every mathematical and scientific principle can be tested over and over and yield that same result. That's what makes it fucking science. I mean shit. If I have a blindfold on, and you put two marbles in my hand, and I make the guess that there are two marbles in my hand, then I take the blindfold off and count them, it's a goddamn scientific fact. No matter how many people count the marbles, there will always be two marbles.

Same with any other hypothesis that goes through the scientific process. It's not one guy making a claim and then everyone takes it as fact. He publishes a paper that i reviewed by tons of people and people replicate his experiment over and over and they always come up with the same answer. That's what makes science science.

If you wanted to, you could do it too. But since it is reviewed and PROVEN by many different people from all over the world, we just take their word for it because it was actually empirically observed.

Has God ever been fucking OBSERVED you fuck? No. A few guys wrote some stories that were compiled into a shitty book, and people just believed them even though they have no reason to or any way to check their claims for themselves.

Science isn't a religion or a belief system, it's a goddamn process that uses facts to reach conclusions. So stop. I hate you. Jimmies rustled. Fuck you.

>>4618478
Obviously I am observing the supposed photon with my sense all the time should it exist, what I meant was that I have not done the experiment which originally convinved some people that there is this thign called photon and have not observed it's existance that way.

Trust is not the same thing as faith or having a belief, I think that is where OP's argument fails. If you CAN observe something and it has been empirically proven by others to be true to the best of our current knowledge/abilities, it's completely different from making claims that are not falsifiable or testable in any way. I just trust that scientists aren't lying about their results, it doesn't require faith because I can theoretically recreate the whole experiment myself and see th results. Our inability to test supernatural claims is what inherently makes them require faith.

>>4618480
There are quite a few people who have claimed to observe god just as there are quite a few people who have claimed to observe photon.

I have not observed god nor photon.

>>4618478

It feels pretty good having a consensus around the world that a photon exists.

But a consensus on God? I lol at the thought.

Just look at how many sects of Christianity exist. Can you really agree that they expect to achieve a unified idea?

Can you actually expect a common ground to be achieved in the battle over heaven and hell?

what a fucking nigga faggot seriously

>>4618488

There are however things called photon detectors which really work

I have yet to see a theodetector

>>4618480
This directly relates with...

>>4618490
This.

>>4618478
the bunch of dudes talking about photons can give you a computer

maybe photons are not real and they're doing magically but ~it makes no difference~

in short,

>>4618452

>>4618478
you can't observe photons directly, as in 'here is a photon it is right in front of you you can see it or hold it or hear it' or something like that, but you can observe it indirectly. Same thing applies for many other things.

You can't use one of your 5 senses to detect some things, but that doesn't mean they can't be detected at all. You're limiting yourself based on what you can hear, see or feel.

>>4618478
>we have only our sense to trust
ITT: Clueless about science AND philosophy.

>>4618501
How do you dispute that argument? We receive information about outside world via sight, sound, taste, feeling and hearing. There is not other way.

>>4618504
>We receive information about outside world via sight, sound, taste, feeling and hearing
I have bad news, OP.

>>4618501

Even Descartes' "revelations," led to a divine being....

I am wondering how you can counter the fact that our senses tell us everything about the :world...."

There could be much more that we are not evolutionary disposed to sense.

>>4618509
I'm not well versed in philosophy, please explain?

trolling like this is really out of date and fucking boring now

>>4618515
basically, Descartes theorized that perception is unreliable and deduction is the only method of proving something as existing/true/whatever.

Something cut from wikipedia:
>He considers a piece of wax; his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still the same piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he should put aside the senses. He must use his mind.

>>4618515
Relinquish all thought, emotion, and predisposition.
Where do you start then?

Who commences the beginning?

If you read any author, please read Descartes.

>>4618511
>trusts sensory input
>doesn't trust math

>>4618528
But you still have to receive the information via your senses before you can engange in deduction, and Descartes too trust his senses - he didn't doubt the solidness, or the latter un solidness of the wax.

>>4618530
Perhaps I shall give him a look. Got any specific work you'd recommend?

>>4618528
ITT It's worthless to try and "see a photon lol".

If you don't trust science as presented to you by many kind people via lectures, books, TV and the internet, it's totally arbitrary to say you can trust your senses. Why stop there?
Going down this road leads to solipsism and I see no reason to discuss anything related to that.

I lol at this. It must be a troll.
I had never intended to argue a disbelief in math. Even though our basic senses, which we rely upon for every, are wholly dependent upon a anthropological view on the world.

Think of it this way...

Does the worst scientist in the world, deserve any credence on a scientific theory?

Does the most morally indignant person deserve an opinion on the matter of ethics and morals?

tl;dr
I think not.

>>4618536
yes, he uses his senses to attain some information, but he does not restrict himself to it. The point is that you can't rely only on your senses to judge anything.

>>4618538
Discourse on Method

motherfucker

>>4618542
>If you don't trust science as presented to you by many kind people via lectures, books, TV and the internet, it's totally arbitrary to say you can trust your senses.

No it's not. There is world of differene between personal experience and experience by someone else communicated to you by words. I'd be an idiot not to trust my own sensen.´, just as much as I'd be an idiot to take the word of someone else as a fact. If you say I have green socks, but I have no socks at all, clearly my own experience is the factual one.

>>4618547
All right.

Cockface.

>>4618548
what if you are wearing socks, but your legs are numb so you can't feel it, and your eyes are closed so you can't see it?

>>4618548
From that stance, you only accept what you can perceive.

Does water leap out of glass?
Do you float into the atmosphere?

No. Because the basis of those questions lie in science.

Religion makes no falsifiable arguments.

Science does, and it regularly defeats them.

>>4618548
>I'd be an idiot not to trust my own senses
You'd be an idiot to solely rely on them.

How do you know you can trust your senses and only them? You cited no criteria.
How do you know you can trust your mind?
Is the madman not convinced his perceived reality is correct?

I'm more and more convinced this is a mediocre trolling attempt. I send this response anyway.

>>4618558
>implying that science wronging and correcting itself as new knowledge is gained isn't the whole point of science in the first place

>>4618528

LOL. The "same wax" LOL. Trying to apply logical tools as direct correlates of configurations of energy LOL.

Oh god I feel sorry for the idiots who find anything PROFOUND in that.

The funny part is that it was HIS FUCKING MENTAL EVALUATIVE MECHANISMS that led him to perceive changes in perception as changes in "things".

I mean Jesus fucking Christ even in language THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS YEARS OLD, there's a multitude of words that describe objects being changed and altered.

Things can get "larger", "smaller", "bigger", "heavier", "disintegrate", "evaporate", "emulsify", "heat up", etc.

To use one's FUCKING INEPT USAGE of language to say "perception is invalid" is one of those common philosopher's rhetorical bludgeons that obscure the inanity of their observations in comparison to the massive body of actual data collection and social technical language creation.

>>4618558
This quote in conjunction with this background...
Man, you make smile.

>>4618553
Then I can either accept that I have no knowledge of wether I'm wearing socks, or ask someone. He might tell me yes or no. I have no compelling evidence to favour one choice over the other.

>>4618559
Please tell me something you rely on for truth other than your senses,

>>4618567
>Descartes
>common philosopher

also, it was only one example, and you missed the point it's trying to make.

>>4618559

And your basis for not relying on your senses IS SHIT FROM YOUR SENSES.

If you were a PROPOSITIONAL SOLIPSIST, there would be no DISJUNCTION because you'd HAVE NOTHING TO PROVOKE, FORCE, INSIPIRE, OR COMPARE TO YOUR PROPOSITIONS.

>>4618378
>2012
>still religion trolling
ISHYGDDT

>>4618577

The point is FUCKING RETARDED and COMMONPLACE.

and Descartes is a "common philosopher" in so much that he tries to dominate vast difficult worlds of mechanics and facts with super-words and idealisms that are done by generating off-shoots of Indo-European words.

>>4618575
you may think and try to remember if you ever put socks on in the past, or if you ever bought green socks in the first place.

>>4618559
>How do you know you can trust your senses and only them? You cited no criteria.
>How do you know you can trust your mind?

I don't, but I choose to because if I don't my life is meaningless. It's pointless to argue about things like "reality" or "existance" or wether we can "trust our mind" because there is no way to prove or disprove any of those and the argument detoriates into bullshit.

>>4618585
you seem to be trying to do the same. And god, quit the caps lock thing.

the point is that using your mind to deduct information received by the senses is better than relying only on your senses to perceive the world. How is that retarded?

>>4618587
Sure, however I was assuming temporary amnesia regarding all things sock.

>>4618576

>>4618600
OH SHIT!

This motherfucker has supernatural senses! Which convey the truth!

WE MUST LISTEN TO HIM!
HE CAN COUNT TO POTATO

>>4618595
>I choose to
So, you do what you want, ignore what you want and accept what you want based on personal preferences without regard for logical principles?

Okay. Bye.

>>4618595
It's not pointless because those ideas define policy. The policy which defines a country.

Read some Sam Harris pl0x.

There are definitely ways, through religion, which we can achieve diminished forms of morality.

>>4618598

LOL

How does on "rely on the senses" in the same sense Descartes is doing (Evaluating differences in qualities as differences in, more scientific language, the more atomic configuration of the object.) without USING A BRAIN?

Descartes is setting up an idiotic strawman where senses can be judged with evaluative mechanisms, forcing us to swallow the judgement of this idiot strawmen, and then posturing a common place observation as some riposte to this strawman WHO DOESN'T EVEN EXIST IN ANY PERSON SINCE THEY ALREADY USE MODELS TO INTERPRET THEIR SENSES.

In fact there were already words like "illusion", "fantasy", "dreams", unreal", etc to describe possible disjunctions between how useful a given perception was.

>>4618616
No.

We receive information about this world with out sense, and have the capability to work in it with our brain. You asked me how do I know I can trust my sensen and my mind and I answered thruthfully, that I don't but choose.

Tell me, how do you know to trust your senses and your mind?

>>4618611
>inane ramblings
So much butthurt...

>>4618619
>>4618621

You can not achieve any understanding about the world without your senses, for that is the only way for you to interpret the world.

>>4618635
Exactly, and that is why you have no other choice but to trust them and the question is completely mundade.

>>4618621
Logical fallacy: loaded question

I never said I didn't trust my senses. Note I don't say my senses are absolutely trustworthy, either.

I said it makes no sense to distrust the scientific method, but rather trust your own senses when you could be a madman in a cell hallucinating having a conversation on 4chan.

Your arbitrary line is arbitrary. "I see it, I smell it, I feel it, I hear it, therefore it exists".

A blind person can't see the stars. From that individual perspective, the nightsky might be cold and empty. Yet the stars are still there.

You limit yourself to arbitrarily selected tools, thus it makes no sense to have a discussion. You will dismiss any counter argument at your whim to suit your personal preference.

>>4618619
you are mistaking an example for a strawman. The wax problem is just one example to quickly illustrate his theory.

And about the words, what's your point? One thing is acknowledging the fact that your senses cannot be trusted sometimes, another is concluding that because of that, every information received through the senses should be reasoned using the mind.

>>4618639
You say "them" as if it is an out-group. Someone outside your range of intellectual ideas.

That is a wrong distinction, sorry.

>>4618383

>we just hear what others say and decide to believe in it.

And that's why you're an idiot. You accept what you hear without investigating anything. However that doesn't apply to everyone.

You don't know what belief is, or what knowledge is or how to acquire knowledge or how to think critically. That's why you make a stupid posts like these. You're an entry-level thinker. You only know of what you experience and you haven't experienced much. Like the general population. When something isn't directly intuitive or pragmatic for your everyday life, you refuse it. You probably also favor emotions over thinking. That is beliefs that make you feel comfortable over ones that are uncomfortable.

>>4618657
There is a distinction between "belief" and "faith" that I am not sure you have grasped.

Please learn moar.

>>4618663

>>4618663

Sorry, was directing my post at
>>4618383

>>4618671
Now you confused him entirely.

>>4618383
>2012
>mistaking belief for faith

>>4618678
You probably shouldn't be in this thread then...

>>4618684
My faith commands me to be here.

>>4618690
Troll.

>>4618378

>>4618693
ITT: the thread

>>4618698
>tfw

>>4618657
>You don't know what belief is

Believing in something is choosing to hold it as a truth based on evidence.

>or what knowledge

Knowledge is sum of beliefs.

>>4618657
>You don't know what belief is

Believing in something is choosing to hold it as a at least momentary truth based on evidence.

>or what knowledge

Knowledge is sum of beliefs.

I've gotten pretty good at recognizing trolls and I'd just like to point out that OP isn't trolling. His OP was very hostile, and it shouldn't have been, but he's really not trolling.

All he's saying is that we need a certain amount of faith in the system because we cannot possibly experience every scientific truth firsthand. For example, even the fact that "water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" we believe because

-we read it in a book
-someone in a position of power told us
-it makes intuitive sense given observations

very few of us have actually played with a fuel cell or whatever else necessary to get firsthand experience. now extrapolate this to things like string theory -- we rely entirely on those few who actually understand it.

all of which can be applied to religion. however, the comparison is not the same because science is based on using logic as a way of knowing rather than emotion. OP wanted to invite discussion of this point. he never said he was religious or he didn't accept scientific conclusions.

Problem: OP is a lazy fuck who tries to belittle the advancements of science to overcome his inferiority complex, which is the result of how little he understands of the world.

Solution: Ignore thread, tell OP to go and read a book.

/thread

>>4618725

actually you're just a fucking idiot. I bet you my entire epeen that OP is atheist and not trolling. see:

>>4618723

>>4618725

also it's a little ironic that you told OP to "go and read a book."

the point of his post is that we know most of our science from books. what is it about science / the scientific method that means we should accept it without firsthand experience?

>>4618723
Holy shit, after all this time ONE person who understood my post. Thank you, thank you so much.

I can sleep easy tonight knowing there are people like you here. Why is it so hard for some people to read and comprehend a simple text, so many people automatically assumed I'm a godfag or don't believe in scientific conclusions when I never implied either

>>4618728
And the second person, you have just made my day. Indeed you are too 100% correct.

Let's stop here though, those who understood did and those who didn't wont.

>>4618723
>he never said he was religious or he didn't accept scientific conclusions.
...and nobody implied that.

>no firsthand experience
True. But if you know the principles, you can extrapolate expected results.

>it makes intuitive sense
lol no. Not everything. Not intuitively. Some things require pre-knowledge, you can't work them out in your garage.

>>4618734

joke's on you, I was samefagging

anyway your OP was written really poorly like I said. next time you could make it less like an attack.

>>4618738
It's only an attack if you take it as such. Anyway In my defense I'm not native english speaker and have no higher than highschool education in english so I guess it is to be expected.

>>4618734
>Let's stop here though, those who understood did and those who didn't wont.
Nobody implied you're religious or a godfag.
You have double standards and you just don't realise how stupid you are.

>>4618728
>fucking idiot
Thanks for the ad hominem and feeding the trolls. But keep your epeen to yourself.

>also it's a little ironic that you told OP to "go and read a book."
>irony
Your asperger is showing. OP cannot be reasoned with, he will dismiss posts and arguments at his whim. Reading a book will do him good.

>>4618734
you skimmed through some replies, right? Because many people did not consider you a godfag or something like that, they just pointed out that your logic is flawed.

>>4618772
Maybe he "choose" not to sense them. Why should he believe something on a computer screen?

Your concerns are justified, OP. Sadly /sci/ is not the place for intellectual discussion. Without reading the thread I geuss that most of the 111 replies were insults, accusations of fallacies or trolling. Way too few people on here fully understand the problem.

>>4618782
Oh god, you are brilliant. My popcorn is ready.

>>4618783
is it even possible to restart a dead thread with trolling unrelated to the main subject of the OP?

> Why should I belive in sience and things like "photons" or "atoms", as opposed to believing all this is magic land created by god?

Because the pope approves of it.
This science vs. Christianity dualism only exists in Murrika with its batshit crazy sects.

>>4618785
It was a brilliant post. Consoled OP's butthole with fake empathy, admitted he didn't even read the thread, insulted the board... too bad the timing is not perfect, maybe that's why it'll auto defuse.

>>4618782
>Without reading the thread I geuss
And this is why you suck at discussions.

>>4618788
Sauce?

>>4618798
>implying it was a serious post
Fueling the fire, eh? Nice one.

>>4618798
Why do you take IG Fundie serious, if it is just a theory(a geuss)?

Checkmate atheists.

>>4618788
>Because the pope approves of it.
I must be dreaming, surely no one on /sci/ would speak the truth?
not fucking with you btw, just glad to see that there are people who understand that

>>4618814
>Implying IQ fundie still exists

Religion, this is what happend, and why science, we have evidence this may have happend and it fits the
best with the rest of the story you cant walk into a church and try to prove to them god didnt make the earth, you can change anything in science if it makes more sense