LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 157 28.19%
Deist 18 3.23%
Theist 21 3.77%
Agnostic 119 21.36%
Atheist 242 43.45%
Voters: 557. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 01-28-2013, 11:20 AM   #4246
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266

Quote:
evidence
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

proof
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

As you can see the two definitions are interdependent and possibly circularly dependent.

What makes proof truth is the fact that it fits with the rest of the truth, IMO.

I think of truth as a puzzle (the one you assemble). Data / information are the puzzle pieces, but they are not guaranteed to be true. To find the truth you have to assemble a puzzle using puzzle pieces of truth and of an infinite number of false puzzle pieces. You have to decide which ones are true somehow.

The evidence / proof (science) based model is actually very similar to the faith / blind belief (religion) based model. What is the difference if any ?

An authority provides you with both, a scientist and a holy man. Each has a method of deriving the truth from an experiment and an old book. So what is it that differentiates them ? What makes you accept one over the other ? I reject parts of both.

The difference is if it makes sense to you, and so you believe it. I have no doubt that religion makes sense to the people that believe in it. They are absolutely convinced that it is true. Same goes for those that believe in science. Of course, there are also those who believe in both somehow.

Back to the puzzle, what I do is simple, and probably what anyone would eventually do faced with such a task once they have realized their task. You start making groups with the puzzle pieces. You put them together to make a coherent, logical group. You keep adding pieces until you can see an image starting to appear. The hard part comes when the groups conflict. You have to reject a group at some point because it must be false. I reject groups when there are too many holes, and when the pieces are stretched or distorted to be able to fit. Some like to manufacture false pieces in order to get you to accept the wrong group. The key is to never accept a group, like in science when they say you cannot be 100% sure. They are right. But you do have to reject a group which is made from manufactured pieces, because it can be used to manipulate you.

I can say that both the science group and religion group have been dissolved from my puzzle. However, I have kept pieces of each and made a more complete puzzle.

And now, I'm sure you'll say that I'm mad
 
Old 01-28-2013, 11:50 AM   #4247
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 14,880
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
An authority provides you with both, a scientist and a holy man. Each has a method of deriving the truth from an experiment and an old book. So what is it that differentiates them ?
The difference is pretty clear: If the scientist says something it will be peer reviewed by large numbers of other people, especially those people that have a different opinion on how things work. It must be repeatable with the same results in order to get scientific significance.

The holy man (or book) says something and you have to believe it or not. There is no way to actually test what the holy man (book) says for correctness, at least when he/it doesn't speak of things that are testable by science.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 12:31 PM   #4248
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
The difference is pretty clear: If the scientist says something it will be peer reviewed by large numbers of other people, especially those people that have a different opinion on how things work. It must be repeatable with the same results in order to get scientific significance.
Really ?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12...entific-papers
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com...ctions-follow/

Quote:
For several months now, we’ve been reporting on variations on a theme: Authors submitting fake email addresses for potential peer reviewers, to ensure positive reviews. In August, for example, we broke the story of a Hyung-In Moon, who has now retracted 24 papers published by Informa because he managed to do his own peer review.

Now, Retraction Watch has learned that the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) was hacked sometime last month, leading to faked peer reviews and retractions — although the submitting authors don’t seem to have been at fault. As of now, eleven papers by authors in China, India, Iran, and Turkey have been retracted from three journals.
Also see:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ns-4175430284/
http://www.nature.com/news/misconduc...ctions-1.11507

Quote:
Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey1 published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason.
There was also an entire journal that was shut down because it was completely fabricated. I don't have the link, but I can probably find it.

You may think that these are chance events and that science is a process by which one extracts truth from lab animals, but it is not at all a perfect system. There is a great deal of room for misconduct and corruption behind the scenes to attain a goal. There are also things that I've heard from my teachers in whisper, because such things can only be said in a whisper. About far more organized means of making sure the researcher comes to the right conclusion in their paper or it might be their last bowl of pasta ... if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I expect to not be believed, and I don't really care anymore. I think the way I do because I can see the underworld ruling everything. You may not see or maybe not choose to see it, but it is there and it affects everything and everyone.

All I ask is that you be a bit more skeptical about this religion you call science. I am as skeptical of it as I am of religion now.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 01-28-2013 at 12:33 PM.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 12:50 PM   #4249
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,702
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243
Science encourages doubt and questioning, religious faith condemns it.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:01 PM   #4250
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 14,880
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806
@H_TeXMeX_H: So your argument in not believing in science is that someone found a flaw in the peer review system, that now hopefully will be fixed. In fact, this makes the peer review system stronger, not weaker.
But anyways, no one, especially not scientists, claims that science is always free of mistakes, it was wrong in past times and it will be in the future. But scientists work constantly on making it better, even if that means to overthrow past theories and replace them with better ones.

Religion, in the contrary must be absolutely perfect from the beginning and can't change. Ever.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:11 PM   #4251
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 682

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
The difference is pretty clear: If the scientist says something it will be peer reviewed by large numbers of other people, especially those people that have a different opinion on how things work. It must be repeatable with the same results in order to get scientific significance.

The holy man (or book) says something and you have to believe it or not. There is no way to actually test what the holy man (book) says for correctness, at least when he/it doesn't speak of things that are testable by science.
What do you mean test? Are you expecting the same criteria to be applied equally to Science and religion? How do I know Global Warming is true? Do I depend on the Prophet Al Gore to reveal this to me? Should I pray about it? At least religion says I can ask God directly.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...er=1&verse=5-6
Quote:
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
What do the Global Warming Scientists offer me for a test of their belief?
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:19 PM   #4252
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 14,880
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid View Post
What do you mean test? Are you expecting the same criteria to be applied equally to Science and religion? How do I know Global Warming is true? Do I depend on the Prophet Al Gore to reveal this to me? Should I pray about it? At least religion says I can ask God directly.
So? What has he answered about the topic of global warming? We know what his stance on slavery and homosexuality is, but nothing about global warming, AIDS, ..., so may be you should ask him, so that we can have this cleared once and for all. Any insider news from the alleged creator?

Quote:
What do the Global Warming Scientists offer me for a test of their belief?
All their gathered data. Feel free to look at it, study it and come back with your conclusions.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:23 PM   #4253
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,456

Rep: Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Science encourages doubt and questioning, religious faith condemns it.
That's just bollocks and someone as smart as you should know that. The bible actually encourages questioning and there is a passage that specifically talks about "false prophets". The problem is peopel are blinded by their own biases that they immediately manufacture negative assumptions about the otehr group.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:24 PM   #4254
fogpipe
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Distribution: Slackware 64 Current
Posts: 313

Rep: Reputation: 64
I voted agnostic, but im a practicing buddhist. By practicing i mean that i get in about 45 minutes of sitting meditation every day. I try not to take anything on faith, even reductive materialism, which seems to be the dominant faith these days.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:31 PM   #4255
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,456

Rep: Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
The difference is pretty clear: If the scientist says something it will be peer reviewed by large numbers of other people, especially those people that have a different opinion on how things work. It must be repeatable with the same results in order to get scientific significance.
Please explain to everyone how you "peer review" the big bang? and I'm not asking about the tv show either. If you have all the answers please give us all the evidence then you can lock this thread. You don't know what happened, science supplies theories but until science reproduces the events that is all that they are. You may not believe in the biblical version but your belief in science based on "peer reviews" is flawed beyond belief. Trust in science is ok but trust in unverifiable theories is just as bad as blind faith in the bible.

Oh, I forgot you are not going to respond to me except to moderate or correct factual errors so you wont be responding to this.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:36 PM   #4256
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,702
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243Reputation: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
That's just bollocks and someone as smart as you should know that. The bible actually encourages questioning and there is a passage that specifically talks about "false prophets". The problem is peopel are blinded by their own biases that they immediately manufacture negative assumptions about the otehr group.
Bollocks?!?! Where is it written that thou shalt believe in quantum mechanics, punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or string theory? How many scientists have been stoned, or burnt at the stake for questioning those theories? Someone as smart as me (LOL!) realises that you just like to argue.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:36 PM   #4257
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 682

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
So? What has he answered about the topic of global warming? We know what his stance on slavery and homosexuality is, but nothing about global warming, AIDS, ..., so may be you should ask him, so that we can have this cleared once and for all. Any insider news from the alleged creator?
So do you expect God to reveal everything in your religious book? Every passing fad, junk science, whim of man? If you believe God needs to write down every concern I'm afraid your idea of God and my idea are vastly different. Heaven forbid he remain silent on something.

Quote:
All their gathered data. Feel free to look at it, study it and come back with your conclusions.
Gathered data? Does Global warming have any? Please tell me what the temperature of London on Jan 28th, 51 A.D. If Science is expected to hold a higher standard than religion the data should be easily accessed.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:44 PM   #4258
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,238

Rep: Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299Reputation: 1299
Is global warming the only topic of science that you mistrust, Blinker_Fluid? (I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious).

Last edited by dugan; 01-28-2013 at 01:53 PM.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:00 PM   #4259
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 682

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
Is global warming the only topic of science that you mistrust, Blinker_Fluid? (I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious).
It's the biggest one I mistrust at the moment. And easily the most like a belief system vs something that can be proved. Think of all the policies, rules, laws and penalties implemented because of this. I'll strap on my tinfoil hat and go so far as if the government/governments wanted to come up with something to control the populace this is it. I feel I would have a far easier time proving that Global Warming is used to control the populace than you would have proving a rise in temperature (and if that change is significant and man-made).
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:46 PM   #4260
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,456

Rep: Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Bollocks?!?! Where is it written that thou shalt believe in quantum mechanics, punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or string theory? How many scientists have been stoned, or burnt at the stake for questioning those theories? Someone as smart as me (LOL!) realises that you just like to argue.
No I like truth instead of biased antagonism which is prety much all this thread has in it from some people on both sides.

Anyway you said
Quote:
Science encourages doubt and questioning, religious faith condemns it.
The highlighted part is complete bollocks. The bible encourages questioning, and testing "false prophets". Modern organised religion has its faults, no one has denied that, but you will find it is splintered (Catholic vs Protestant) because many people have questioned it.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration