The first problem you're running into here as simple. Without my senses, I can't learn about what the doctors in your example are trying to tell me about their conclusions via the scientific method. I can't read the report, I can't hear them speak. Nothing.
No matter what experiment you cook up to question my senses, I still have to use my senses to find out about it. Different senses can help check eachother to a degree, such as using the sense of touch to determine there's a transparent wall my eyes aren't able to see. But at best I'm using information from one set of senses to contradict information from another.
The second problem you're running into is that a method of investigation still isn't an axiom.
The first problem you're running into here as simple. Without my senses, I can't learn about what the doctors in your example are trying to tell me about their conclusions via the scientific method. I can't read the report, I can't hear them speak. Nothing.
Ok,
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
The second problem you're running into is that a method of investigation still isn't an axiom.
Have you been reading my posts?
Because, I've not been saying "this method of investigation" is an axiom. I have been saying "this method of investigation is the best way we have to find truth" is an axiom.
Oh, and you still didn't answer:
The first problem you're running into here as simple. Without my senses, I can't learn about what the doctors in your example are trying to tell me about their conclusions via the scientific method. I can't read the report, I can't hear them speak. Nothing.
Ok,
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Your doctor example was presented to challenge my acceptance of my senses versus the scientific method, wasn't it? You presented this:
Quote from Taylor »
Now, in saying that, I realize we are talking about YOU. Because, I want it to be clear I would trust the scientists. I do take the scientific method over my own feelings. If I 'feel' something is true, but the scientific method says it's false, I would take the method 100% of the time.
Which -really- is why I'm confused you keep saying I'm not taking it 'axiomatically.' I am literally taking it over something you say IS 'axiomatic.' So, while maybe you don't take it to be axiomatic (which is fine), you're going to have to explain to me how that's not what I'm doing.
There, see? That's what I'm responding to.
I'm pointing out that this isn't a case of you taking the scientific method over something I claim is axiomatic. This is an example of you trusting what some of your senses report over what other senses report. Both are providing you information. The information is conflicting. You're trusting some of that information, delivered to you by your senses, over the other. You still need to accept the general accuracy of at least some of your senses here. Listening (see? sense!) to what the scientists say in no way contradicts the axiom.
The second problem you're running into is that a method of investigation still isn't an axiom.
Have you been reading my posts?
Because, I've not been saying "this method of investigation" is an axiom. I have been saying "this method of investigation is the best way we have to find truth" is an axiom.
Oh, and you still didn't answer:
You can't tell me 'I trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now' and 'the scientific method requires justification.'
So, which is it? Do you trust the scientific method, or do you have some way to check it that does not involve it?
How can you accurately validate the scientific method's findings without using the scientific method?
I've answered that point many times, in multiple ways. Once more, you can justify the scientific method as a valid conclusion based upon the genuine axioms. That doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is not synonymous with "logic" or "rational thought". Using it just happens to be supported by logic and rational thought.
Additonally, this all comes back to what everyone here is saying. You did justify the scientific method with your, "cause it works" statement. How do you know it works? Or is this just a circular argument? Could the kid in the example be equally justified in saying, "Trusting gut feelings is better than the scientific method because I feel in my gut that it is?" If not, why not?
We've already mentioned reference to more fundamental beliefs the scientific method rests on. For example:
The scientific method, like all methods, does require justification. It is justified all the time by how well it works. The scientific method is also justifiably built upon more fundamental beliefs, such as nature behaving consistently and the general accuracy of our senses.
That's where this whole senses-controversy sprang up from.
People following the discussion might be tempted to argue that Taylor already accepts this because he had previously claimed the scientific method is an axiom built upon other axioms - which prompted my analogy to claiming that the tenth floor of a building is the ground floor that happens to be built on top of other ground floors. However, he seems to have since edited that claim out; so I'm going to assume he changed his mind regarding that. Let's not waste time bringing up a seeming contradiction when it's no longer relevant. It wouldn't be fair. I'm only mentioning it because it's not obvious this change happened unless you go back and re-read older posts.
I would tell this hypothetical student, 'Cuz, it works.'
What I would -likely- not say is that the only way we know 'it works' is to apply it to its own results...
The way we tell if the scientific method 'works' IS the scientific method.
I've answered that point many times, in multiple ways. Once more, you can justify the scientific method as a valid conclusion based upon the genuine axioms. That doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is not synonymous with "logic" or "rational thought". Using it just happens to be supported by logic and rational thought.
You've not explained how that would work independent of the scientific method.
How, for example, would you verify General Relativity without the scientific method?
How do you know it works? Or is this just a circular argument?
Yes-like your senses argument can when presented a certain way- it appears circular when presented this way.
That's kinda the point.
How do you respond to someone that keeps asking "why" over and over? Kids do it a lot.
"Why should we trust the scientific method?" "It works."
"Why do we know it works?" "The scientific method."
"Why should we trust the scientific method?" "It works."
"Why do we..."
Could the kid in the example be equally justified in saying, "Trusting gut feelings is better than the scientific method because I feel in my gut that it is?" If not, why not?
Not my place to tell him what to do in that regard. Likely, he would regardless of what I'd say. I'd just let him know how I grade in my class and let him make his own life decisions.
@Taylor
If the way we tell the scientific method works is the scientific method, then 'it works' is a tautology. 'It works according to itself' is only wrong if you are proposing a very weird idea. Hence, why bother saying it? Just say, 'I believe in the scientific method because it seems right to me (or whatever)'. And on the point, don't do that. Do tell them 'it works' because it does, not according to scientific method but according to more basic forms of investigation. Axioms should be 'self-evident' (i.e. intuitive and highly reasonable), which means they should not only be simple but also fundamental. Science was by design built upon logical axioms. It was always meant to be a specific method derived from axiomatic truths, not an axiom in-and-of-itself. And besides, it's easier to justify such fundamental axioms than science as a whole. Axioms need to be essentially absolute, they cannot stand or fall on other claims (more on this further down), but on the most basic of principles. Just to repeat what I have said earlier, axioms are not normally unjustified, they are just justified in a vague and fundamental manner and not a technical manner. The exception is reason itself. While axioms aren't supposed to rely on other claims, they really do, it's just that reason is the claim in question and the possibility of reason being wrong (a reality with fundamental properties of subjective existence, indetermination, contradiction, etc.) is normally ignored so it's taken as a given. Due to it's nature of course, reason can't really be justified as a truth, but only really either assumed as truth or taken as the only conceivable solution, my choice is the second of course because that kind of answer is generally how I am proposing things to operate. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can agree on reason as an axiom, and go from there into how we should decide other axioms and building into theorems and models.
Ok,
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Can you -at least- stop using the same strawman?
I'd love to. Just stop making flawed arguments BASED on this point, and I won't have to keep bringing up why they're wrong. You can keep claiming you're not saying this, but then you make an argument that relies on it.
Your attempt to demonstrate that my axiom of trusting the "general" accuracy of your senses is invalid due to being more willing to trust what scientists are telling you doesn't work for the exact methods I mentioned. You are doubting what a single sense is reporting based on what your other senses are reporting. This does not invalidate my claim that you need to take the general accuracy of your senses as an axiom, because your attempt to even use the scientific information you're getting only works if you predicate it on the general accuracy of your senses.
This is why some general trust in your senses IS a more fundamental than a belief in the scientific method. And this is why your example fails to demonstrate that the scientific method takes precedence over this belief. Because the scientific method is indeed built on the belief. If you don't trust the general accuracy of your senses, then you can't trust they're accurately relaying the information needed for the scientific method. If you accept this, great. Stop making this flawed argument and I won't have to keep responding to it.
I've answered that point many times, in multiple ways. Once more, you can justify the scientific method as a valid conclusion based upon the genuine axioms. That doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is not synonymous with "logic" or "rational thought". Using it just happens to be supported by logic and rational thought.
How, for example, would you verify General Relativity without the scientific method?
This is irrelevant. Here's what you're doing:
"My apartment is on the ground floor of this building."
"No it isn't. It's built upon two other floors. It's the third floor, not the ground floor."
"Oh yeah? Well how would you build the FOURTH floor without my floor? See? It's the ground floor."
Nope. The scientific method is equipped to answer scientific questions. The conclusions to those questions can indeed be based on the scientific method. The scientific method itself is justified based on other things NOT using the scientific method. At the ground floor of this tower of reason lies the actual axioims.
Quote from Taylor »
Quote from "Stairc »
How do you know it works? Or is this just a circular argument?
Yes, yes it is.
That's -like- the whole point.
And that's where you're wrong. We're able to justify the scientific method without applying the scientific method. You may be unable to do this, but that's your problem. It's not the scientific method's problem.
If you believe the justification for the scientific method is circular, then believing based on gut feeligns is equally circular. And you can't genuinely say your method is any more valid. Watch:
You: "The scientific is best because I applied the scientific method and it says it's best."
Kid: "Gut feelings are best because my gut feelings tell me so."
You're stuck. Luckily, we're not.
How do you respond to someone that keeps asking "why" over and over? Kids do it a lot.
"Why should we trust the scientific method?" "It works."
"Why do we know it works?"
"Because we're able to observe the world around us. In our experience, when we apply the scientific method the results tend to be better aligned with our desired results than if we don't. Also, the scientific method is built upon valid axioms. If you make continual valid conclusions based on those axioms in a coherent line of reasoning, it all justifies the use of the scientific method. "
"But doesn't that mean using the scientific method?"
"No. It just means using logic and rational thought, which eventually justifies the scientific method."
Could the kid in the example be equally justified in saying, "Trusting gut feelings is better than the scientific method because I feel in my gut that it is?" If not, why not?
Not my place to tell him what to do in that regard. Likely, he would regardless of what I'd say. I'd just let him know how I grade in my class and let him make his own life decisions.
I didn't ask you what you'd tell him to do. I asked if you think the kid is equally justified in his belief in the superiority of gut feelings to the scientific method. Seems you can't figure out why he's not.
The way we tell if the scientific method 'works' IS the scientific method.
No it isn't. The way we tell if it works (the way we tell if anything works) is whether it produces expected/desired results.
As an example, let's explore determining that General Relativity is true without using the scientific method. Since you brought it up.
General Relativity makes a number of predictions, including that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, the clocks in a satellite 20,000 kilometers above the surface of the Earth would be 45 microseconds ahead of a ground-based clock at the end of the day (with the difference increasing each day). The engineers of our Global Positioning System took this prediction into account (along with Special Relativity which predicts that the satellite's clocks would be falling behind by 7 microseconds a day due to relative speeds), and the GPS satellite constellation over our heads and the GPS software in your phone is actively compensating for the 38-microsecond-per-day difference predicted by General and Special Relativity.
If these predictions of Relativity were false, then due to the precise timing requirements for GPS to function, your location readout on a GPS receiver would produce an incorrect result within 2 minutes, and errors would increase at a rate of approximately 10 kilometers per day. The fact that it is possible to navigate with a GPS device at all is evidence for two scientific theories being true.
I'm guessing Taylor is going to claim that testing the claim this way counts as using the scientific method Lithl. You might want to get ahead of that and explain the distinction.
Adam lived with 1 law not to eat the quince
Noah lived with 7 laws
Abraham made a covenant with God
Ishmael fathered the arabs (sabeans are muslims before muhammad)
Isaac begot Jacob surnamed Israel was the superior son with a better covenant
Jacob buys Esau his twin brothers birthright and identity for a single piece of meat
Moses received 613 laws
Muslims observe sharia but denounce hebrew holidays (passover is a requirement, they reject it and made up ramadan)
Solomon built the 1st temple that was destroyed by the babylonians
Elijah slays the prophets of Baal
Zerubabbel built the 2nd temple that was destroyed by the romans who eventually build a temple to Jupiter that is destroyed by the muslims who build the Dome of the Rock
Jesus reinstates Torah observance, relaxes holidays/dietary/sacrificial laws for Gentiles
Catholicism is the true church established by St Peter the first Pope
Jews are grandfathered in
Mormons teach a different Jesus and defy Galatians 1:6-9
Adam lived with 1 law not to eat the quince
Noah lived with 7 laws
Abraham made a covenant with God
Ishmael fathered the arabs (sabeans are muslims before muhammad)
Isaac begot Jacob surnamed Israel was the superior son with a better covenant
Jacob buys Esau his twin brothers birthright and identity for a single piece of meat
Moses received 613 laws
Muslims observe sharia but denounce hebrew holidays (passover is a requirement, they reject it and made up ramadan)
Solomon built the 1st temple that was destroyed by the babylonians
Elijah slays the prophets of Baal
Zerubabbel built the 2nd temple that was destroyed by the romans who eventually build a temple to Jupiter that is destroyed by the muslims who build the Dome of the Rock
Jesus reinstates Torah observance, relaxes holidays/dietary/sacrificial laws for Gentiles
Catholicism is the true church established by St Peter the first Pope
Jews are grandfathered in
Mormons teach a different Jesus and defy Galatians 1:6-9
Relevance? What does this have to be with the thread topic? I mean, it's not completely unrelated, but it's not exactly on topic.
Adam lived with 1 law not to eat the quince
Noah lived with 7 laws
Abraham made a covenant with God
Ishmael fathered the arabs (sabeans are muslims before muhammad)
Isaac begot Jacob surnamed Israel was the superior son with a better covenant
Jacob buys Esau his twin brothers birthright and identity for a single piece of meat
Moses received 613 laws
Muslims observe sharia but denounce hebrew holidays (passover is a requirement, they reject it and made up ramadan)
Solomon built the 1st temple that was destroyed by the babylonians
Elijah slays the prophets of Baal
Zerubabbel built the 2nd temple that was destroyed by the romans who eventually build a temple to Jupiter that is destroyed by the muslims who build the Dome of the Rock
Jesus reinstates Torah observance, relaxes holidays/dietary/sacrificial laws for Gentiles
Catholicism is the true church established by St Peter the first Pope
Jews are grandfathered in
Mormons teach a different Jesus and defy Galatians 1:6-9
Relevance? What does this have to be with the thread topic? I mean, it's not completely unrelated, but it's not exactly on topic.
Thread says "Define your faith"
everything stated above i believe to be true as primary and secondary sources i am defined as a Proselyte
I used bullets to make it easy to read for believers/fact checkers/historians like myself/the faithless
and I hope it is found helpful as this was all deemed credible at my University and I encourage people to actually read and more informative and more relevant than someone trying to incorrectly state the "scientific method"
A muslim for example doesn't question whether or not the law to not eat pig exists, he acknowledges the law as truth and has trust in observing it.
God invented science and process of elimination for reasoning which i understand they are trying to be intelligent which i respect but rather than focusing on circular logic or fancy structured sentences that look sophisticated just live humbly and not in a state of sin
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
I'm sorry, no religious laws -- not even ones that I agree with, such as "thou shalt not kill" -- is anywhere close to the same category as scientific laws. Scientific laws are statements based on repeated experimentation. They describe events that we see. Social laws are instructions for behavior, generally backed up by some system of punishments for those breaking the laws.
Scientific laws state what things do do. Social laws state what people should do.
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
I'm sorry, no religious laws -- not even ones that I agree with, such as "thou shalt not kill" -- is anywhere close to the same category as scientific laws. Scientific laws are statements based on repeated experimentation. They describe events that we see. Social laws are instructions for behavior, generally backed up by some system of punishments for those breaking the laws.
Scientific laws state what things do do. Social laws state what people should do.
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
I'm sorry, no religious laws -- not even ones that I agree with, such as "thou shalt not kill" -- is anywhere close to the same category as scientific laws. Scientific laws are statements based on repeated experimentation. They describe events that we see. Social laws are instructions for behavior, generally backed up by some system of punishments for those breaking the laws.
Scientific laws state what things do do. Social laws state what people should do.
Sharia is divine law
How do you know?
And in response to the question of the thread, I have no faith. I am an agnostic atheist. I make no positive or negative statement about the existence of god because I have not been demonstrated either position. Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs, not the ascertain that god does not exist. Thus I am an atheist.
A muslim for example doesn't question whether or not the law to not eat pig exists, he acknowledges the law as truth and has trust in observing it.
There's a difference between believing a religious tenet exists and a religious tenet being truth.
You don't believe that God forbids you to eat pigs, do you? So clearly you believe that said Muslim needs to question his faith more.
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
First of all, a law in the sense of a codified rule of how a person should behave is not the same as a natural law describing how things do operate.
Second, are you Christian? If so, then you don't abide by the Torah, nor are you supposed to.
Divine law is still a kind social law, because it governs social interactions. The reason it's not in the same category is that divine law is only true if the supposed divinity is real. Scientific law is true whether or not you believe in it.
Also, let me take a wild guess: your school is run by a religious organization? A Catholic University, probably, based on your posts?
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
I'm sorry, no religious laws -- not even ones that I agree with, such as "thou shalt not kill" -- is anywhere close to the same category as scientific laws. Scientific laws are statements based on repeated experimentation. They describe events that we see. Social laws are instructions for behavior, generally backed up by some system of punishments for those breaking the laws.
Scientific laws state what things do do. Social laws state what people should do.
Sharia is divine law
The divinity or lack thereof of Sharia law is irrelevant. It is a set of social laws, which are not in any way in the same category as natural laws.
Proselyte is a convert to the Hebrew God YHWH. I am not Christian and i went to Worcester State University which is not affiliated as a religious school. That being said religious schools should be respected establishments where many scientific scholars that were also religious help to provide a safe haven for private study of both. Isaac newton for example spent years studying Solomon's Temple and building modules of it. He would view his laws of motion as fundamental to human existence as the laws of Noah.
Given through Moses from our Creator we are not to eat pigs mice bats for example. some banned animals are more prevalent than others and it remains a personal choice to abide by all law murder included, do what you want i find it easier to live by these small sacrifices as a historian i try to be accurate and more "back to basics" lifestyle.
Im not a preacher nor do i want you to change your life, just stating the reforms i went through and that 3 major religions abide by the same 613 commandments given to Moses. i know plenty of christians that participate in satyr meals during Passover.
Isaac newton for example spent years studying Solomon's Temple and building modules of it. He would view his laws of motion as fundamental to human existence as the laws of Noah.
Issac Newton also believed that alchemy was real. What's your point?
I have a question. Where does the notion of 'faith' meaning 'belief without evidence' come from? Outside of a religious context, no one uses the word in that way. You have faith in your friends and family. You have faith in your abilities. You have faith that running this card over that one will improve your win percentage in the long run. None of these are necessarily without evidence; they just require a certain amount of cognitive effort to maintain your belief in the face of emotional uncertainty.
And religious believers don't use 'faith' to mean 'belief without evidence' either. Most religious believers believe that they have evidence for their belief (whether that evidence is valid or decisive isn't a discussion I want to get into here). The only times I've seen people define faith as 'belief without evidence' is in the case of people criticizing religious faith.
I have a question. Where does the notion of 'faith' meaning 'belief without evidence'
'Belief without sufficient evidence' is generally what I hear. Which means, there are some things which could support the notion, but not enough to properly justify belief in the notion.
This translates to the suggestion of emotional and/or moral commitment to something, beyond the evidence.
No matter what experiment you cook up to question my senses, I still have to use my senses to find out about it. Different senses can help check eachother to a degree, such as using the sense of touch to determine there's a transparent wall my eyes aren't able to see. But at best I'm using information from one set of senses to contradict information from another.
The second problem you're running into is that a method of investigation still isn't an axiom.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Have you been reading my posts?
Because, I've not been saying "this method of investigation" is an axiom. I have been saying "this method of investigation is the best way we have to find truth" is an axiom.
Oh, and you still didn't answer: How can you accurately validate the scientific method's findings without using the scientific method?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Your doctor example was presented to challenge my acceptance of my senses versus the scientific method, wasn't it? You presented this:
There, see? That's what I'm responding to.
I'm pointing out that this isn't a case of you taking the scientific method over something I claim is axiomatic. This is an example of you trusting what some of your senses report over what other senses report. Both are providing you information. The information is conflicting. You're trusting some of that information, delivered to you by your senses, over the other. You still need to accept the general accuracy of at least some of your senses here. Listening (see? sense!) to what the scientists say in no way contradicts the axiom.
I've answered that point many times, in multiple ways. Once more, you can justify the scientific method as a valid conclusion based upon the genuine axioms. That doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is not synonymous with "logic" or "rational thought". Using it just happens to be supported by logic and rational thought.
Additonally, this all comes back to what everyone here is saying. You did justify the scientific method with your, "cause it works" statement. How do you know it works? Or is this just a circular argument? Could the kid in the example be equally justified in saying, "Trusting gut feelings is better than the scientific method because I feel in my gut that it is?" If not, why not?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think Taylor wants to know exactly what axioms the scientific method falls under.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That's where this whole senses-controversy sprang up from.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
That's proving my point, not yours. Ok,
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Can you -at least- stop using the same strawman?
You've not explained how that would work independent of the scientific method.
How, for example, would you verify General Relativity without the scientific method?
Yes-like your senses argument can when presented a certain way- it appears circular when presented this way.
That's kinda the point.
How do you respond to someone that keeps asking "why" over and over? Kids do it a lot.
"Why should we trust the scientific method?"
"It works."
"Why do we know it works?"
"The scientific method."
"Why should we trust the scientific method?"
"It works."
"Why do we..."
Not my place to tell him what to do in that regard. Likely, he would regardless of what I'd say. I'd just let him know how I grade in my class and let him make his own life decisions.
If the way we tell the scientific method works is the scientific method, then 'it works' is a tautology. 'It works according to itself' is only wrong if you are proposing a very weird idea. Hence, why bother saying it? Just say, 'I believe in the scientific method because it seems right to me (or whatever)'. And on the point, don't do that. Do tell them 'it works' because it does, not according to scientific method but according to more basic forms of investigation. Axioms should be 'self-evident' (i.e. intuitive and highly reasonable), which means they should not only be simple but also fundamental. Science was by design built upon logical axioms. It was always meant to be a specific method derived from axiomatic truths, not an axiom in-and-of-itself. And besides, it's easier to justify such fundamental axioms than science as a whole. Axioms need to be essentially absolute, they cannot stand or fall on other claims (more on this further down), but on the most basic of principles. Just to repeat what I have said earlier, axioms are not normally unjustified, they are just justified in a vague and fundamental manner and not a technical manner. The exception is reason itself. While axioms aren't supposed to rely on other claims, they really do, it's just that reason is the claim in question and the possibility of reason being wrong (a reality with fundamental properties of subjective existence, indetermination, contradiction, etc.) is normally ignored so it's taken as a given. Due to it's nature of course, reason can't really be justified as a truth, but only really either assumed as truth or taken as the only conceivable solution, my choice is the second of course because that kind of answer is generally how I am proposing things to operate. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can agree on reason as an axiom, and go from there into how we should decide other axioms and building into theorems and models.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'd love to. Just stop making flawed arguments BASED on this point, and I won't have to keep bringing up why they're wrong. You can keep claiming you're not saying this, but then you make an argument that relies on it.
Your attempt to demonstrate that my axiom of trusting the "general" accuracy of your senses is invalid due to being more willing to trust what scientists are telling you doesn't work for the exact methods I mentioned. You are doubting what a single sense is reporting based on what your other senses are reporting. This does not invalidate my claim that you need to take the general accuracy of your senses as an axiom, because your attempt to even use the scientific information you're getting only works if you predicate it on the general accuracy of your senses.
This is why some general trust in your senses IS a more fundamental than a belief in the scientific method. And this is why your example fails to demonstrate that the scientific method takes precedence over this belief. Because the scientific method is indeed built on the belief. If you don't trust the general accuracy of your senses, then you can't trust they're accurately relaying the information needed for the scientific method. If you accept this, great. Stop making this flawed argument and I won't have to keep responding to it.
This is irrelevant. Here's what you're doing:
"My apartment is on the ground floor of this building."
"No it isn't. It's built upon two other floors. It's the third floor, not the ground floor."
"Oh yeah? Well how would you build the FOURTH floor without my floor? See? It's the ground floor."
Nope. The scientific method is equipped to answer scientific questions. The conclusions to those questions can indeed be based on the scientific method. The scientific method itself is justified based on other things NOT using the scientific method. At the ground floor of this tower of reason lies the actual axioims.
And that's where you're wrong. We're able to justify the scientific method without applying the scientific method. You may be unable to do this, but that's your problem. It's not the scientific method's problem.
If you believe the justification for the scientific method is circular, then believing based on gut feeligns is equally circular. And you can't genuinely say your method is any more valid. Watch:
You: "The scientific is best because I applied the scientific method and it says it's best."
Kid: "Gut feelings are best because my gut feelings tell me so."
You're stuck. Luckily, we're not.
"Because we're able to observe the world around us. In our experience, when we apply the scientific method the results tend to be better aligned with our desired results than if we don't. Also, the scientific method is built upon valid axioms. If you make continual valid conclusions based on those axioms in a coherent line of reasoning, it all justifies the use of the scientific method. "
"But doesn't that mean using the scientific method?"
"No. It just means using logic and rational thought, which eventually justifies the scientific method."
"Wow Mister, I learned a lot today!"
"Yes you did Billy. Yes you did."
I didn't ask you what you'd tell him to do. I asked if you think the kid is equally justified in his belief in the superiority of gut feelings to the scientific method. Seems you can't figure out why he's not.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
As an example, let's explore determining that General Relativity is true without using the scientific method. Since you brought it up.
General Relativity makes a number of predictions, including that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, the clocks in a satellite 20,000 kilometers above the surface of the Earth would be 45 microseconds ahead of a ground-based clock at the end of the day (with the difference increasing each day). The engineers of our Global Positioning System took this prediction into account (along with Special Relativity which predicts that the satellite's clocks would be falling behind by 7 microseconds a day due to relative speeds), and the GPS satellite constellation over our heads and the GPS software in your phone is actively compensating for the 38-microsecond-per-day difference predicted by General and Special Relativity.
If these predictions of Relativity were false, then due to the precise timing requirements for GPS to function, your location readout on a GPS receiver would produce an incorrect result within 2 minutes, and errors would increase at a rate of approximately 10 kilometers per day. The fact that it is possible to navigate with a GPS device at all is evidence for two scientific theories being true.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Adam lived with 1 law not to eat the quince
Noah lived with 7 laws
Abraham made a covenant with God
Ishmael fathered the arabs (sabeans are muslims before muhammad)
Isaac begot Jacob surnamed Israel was the superior son with a better covenant
Jacob buys Esau his twin brothers birthright and identity for a single piece of meat
Moses received 613 laws
Muslims observe sharia but denounce hebrew holidays (passover is a requirement, they reject it and made up ramadan)
Solomon built the 1st temple that was destroyed by the babylonians
Elijah slays the prophets of Baal
Zerubabbel built the 2nd temple that was destroyed by the romans who eventually build a temple to Jupiter that is destroyed by the muslims who build the Dome of the Rock
Jesus reinstates Torah observance, relaxes holidays/dietary/sacrificial laws for Gentiles
Catholicism is the true church established by St Peter the first Pope
Jews are grandfathered in
Mormons teach a different Jesus and defy Galatians 1:6-9
Relevance? What does this have to be with the thread topic? I mean, it's not completely unrelated, but it's not exactly on topic.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Thread says "Define your faith"
everything stated above i believe to be true as primary and secondary sources i am defined as a Proselyte
I used bullets to make it easy to read for believers/fact checkers/historians like myself/the faithless
and I hope it is found helpful as this was all deemed credible at my University and I encourage people to actually read and more informative and more relevant than someone trying to incorrectly state the "scientific method"
A muslim for example doesn't question whether or not the law to not eat pig exists, he acknowledges the law as truth and has trust in observing it.
God invented science and process of elimination for reasoning which i understand they are trying to be intelligent which i respect but rather than focusing on circular logic or fancy structured sentences that look sophisticated just live humbly and not in a state of sin
Study the torah and you will find that as much as you disagree with it you abide by a majority of the divine law and expect society to as well
(murder/theft/adultery) i put those laws in the same category as Newtons Laws or Ohms Law as passing the scientific method
Scientific laws state what things do do. Social laws state what people should do.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Sharia is divine law
How do you know?
And in response to the question of the thread, I have no faith. I am an agnostic atheist. I make no positive or negative statement about the existence of god because I have not been demonstrated either position. Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs, not the ascertain that god does not exist. Thus I am an atheist.
Modern:
RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs
RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy:
UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander:
UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
You don't believe that God forbids you to eat pigs, do you? So clearly you believe that said Muslim needs to question his faith more.
First of all, a law in the sense of a codified rule of how a person should behave is not the same as a natural law describing how things do operate.
Second, are you Christian? If so, then you don't abide by the Torah, nor are you supposed to.
Also, let me take a wild guess: your school is run by a religious organization? A Catholic University, probably, based on your posts?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Given through Moses from our Creator we are not to eat pigs mice bats for example. some banned animals are more prevalent than others and it remains a personal choice to abide by all law murder included, do what you want i find it easier to live by these small sacrifices as a historian i try to be accurate and more "back to basics" lifestyle.
Im not a preacher nor do i want you to change your life, just stating the reforms i went through and that 3 major religions abide by the same 613 commandments given to Moses. i know plenty of christians that participate in satyr meals during Passover.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
And religious believers don't use 'faith' to mean 'belief without evidence' either. Most religious believers believe that they have evidence for their belief (whether that evidence is valid or decisive isn't a discussion I want to get into here). The only times I've seen people define faith as 'belief without evidence' is in the case of people criticizing religious faith.
'Belief without sufficient evidence' is generally what I hear. Which means, there are some things which could support the notion, but not enough to properly justify belief in the notion.
This translates to the suggestion of emotional and/or moral commitment to something, beyond the evidence.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice