What forum do we want?

General Discussion
61

The problem with faith in the supernatural is that it is not testable. If it were testable it would be natural.

62
Faith and critical thinking are polar opposites. You have one or the other, never both.
Sounds pretty black and white - like saying you are straight or you are homo with no in-between.

We’re humans, we tend to live in the gray zones.

 

Compartmentalizing and selective denial for survival sake are also human traits difficult to quantize. :wink:

63
The scientist bases his reasoned theory on the faith that it has merit. Experiments are then conducted to prove the theory which may or may not meet the test.
I see that a little differently. The scientist chooses to experiment or collect data based on some reasonable level of thinking it will produce a result. If he needs help, he has to make some sort of case for it. That work is then conducted. The results of the work are then evaluated and conclusions must be supported by the results, or they remain speculation, not part of a theory or scientific fact. The individual scientist may continue to have faith in their own speculation, but that is independent of the scientific conclusions.
64
The individual scientist may continue to have faith in their own speculation, but that is independent of the scientific conclusions.
Well said. The beliefs are personal things, whereas the science seeks rational objectivity.

Which is why The Community of Scientists, scientists who are curious, skeptical, competitive and always looking for mistakes in the work of others (as well as their own), is a key aspect of science, one that receives way too little attention when dealing with contrarian rhetorical fancy dancing.

 

65

Faith rests on an initial conviction that a concept is true from the onset.

Science rests on a 4 step process of development of a theory which describes the truth of a concept

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations are made visually or with the aid of scientific equipment. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by predicting and observing the existence of new phenomena that follow from the hypothesis. If experiments do not confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2). 4. Establish a theory based on repeated verification of the results.

Only after the final step has been reached, can a scientist cite the theory as current knowledge with a high degree of confidence.

66
The scientific method has four steps
I've come to the conclusion that is too many steps for the average person to deal with. They can handle stuff like:

Step 1: Did my chosen elders like it? (That means anyone from parents, or the older kid next door, or a pop star, whoever I want)

Step 1: Do more than a billion people say they believe it? (Don’t bother about the 6 billion that don’t).

Step 1: Does it sound good? Like, I don’t have do that much, but I’ll get some reward someday?

Step 1: Is math required? If yes, forget it.

67

………

68

@citizenschallengev3

I don’t think that saying faith and critical thinking are polar opposites is anything like a dichotomy. I know that most things are not black and white. But faith is believing something without evidence (or ignoring the evidence in favor of the belief) while critical thinking is evaluating the evidence to come to a belief. If you have, accept and evaluate evidence to come to a belief that is critical thinking while it is faith when you do not have, dismiss or ignore evidence.

And you reminded me of an amusing thing I like to do to people who say that homosexuality is a choice. I tell them that I am straight. I am not in the least bit attracted to men. No matter how hard I try I simply cannot force myself to be aroused by a hairy butt. And then I point out that if they CAN choose then that, by definition, means that they are bisexual. Strangely that type rarely likes to here this news.

69
Widdershin: And you reminded me of an amusing thing I like to do to people who say that homosexuality is a choice. I tell them that I am straight. I am not in the least bit attracted to men. No matter how hard I try I simply cannot force myself to be aroused by a hairy butt. And then I point out that if they CAN choose then that, by definition, means that they are bisexual. Strangely that type rarely likes to here this news.
If you are straight and can't be attracted to a hairy butt, then you are among those within the bell curve. Those with free will are a minority outside the normal distribution.
70

ewww! Hairy butts. Yuck. I must not have the free will to be attracted to them. Unless… Hey, what about hair removal products?

71
Tim: ewww! Hairy butts. Yuck.
That's not a politically-correct response. Bigotry even.
72

lol Maybe it wasn’t politically correct, but it was funny. You know, not all men have hairy butts. Now a friend of mine’s husband might have one given that he is one of those very hairy men, looking like a throwback to our ancestors, but my guess is most men aren’t hairy.

73

You forget my psychic power. (I have the power to imagine what people’s butts look like.) And indeed, not all men have hairy butts, and VERY few women have hairy butts, (except, oddly enough, women who are Philadelphia Eagles fans).

74

Oh, I hope you are not an Eagles fan, Mriana. I promise I have NOT imagined what your butt looks like. I respect you too much for that. And that goes for all of you. I have not imagined what any of your butts look like. (I mean even psychic phenomenon’s like myself, must have ethics.)