Science and religion (culled from "Earth not center" thread)

[Ken G]

I believe my examples may be less significant because they are easier to examine the objective parts and are thus not emotionally committed to, but I think the missing "emotional commitment" does not detract from the value or applicability of the examples. So I guess we will just have to disagree.

I think so. I'm saying that existence is actually a terribly profound concept, far deeper than any science, but not in the way we superficially use it in our day-to-day kind of movie-going existence.

Science admits it's simplifications, and seeks to correct them when something better comes along.

But some are inherent. Nothing better than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will ever come along, if we have it right. And that's an inherently scientific context-- if you go outside that, the inescapable limitations of science become even more important.

I'm not advocating they be treated as history, I'm saying that believers improperly treat them as history.

But I'm saying-- what is history anyway? There's a science there, and it has science's limitations. History, in quantum mechanics and human affairs, is actually something much more profound, and inscrutable, even if we were there.

[Ken G]

From www.dictionary.com: "1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)."

That's an interesting point, that it's possible to coerce someone into having a subjective belief. I'm sure that's part of what Orwell was saying-- that it is possible to coerce so effectively that you can control subjective beliefs. I'm talking about subjective beliefs in the presence of freedom of thought (and freedom of religion), but you have pointed out yet another class of problems that one must be on the lookout for. I agree that objective answers are a kind of "antidote" to coerced subjective thinking-- the kind of subjective thinking I'm interested in exists largely in realms where there simply is no objective answer, unless the simplifications used are mistaken for the "real thing". But one shouldn't even do that in science.

Science is not an authority figure, nor is it an individual nor group of individuals. Science is a tool, as well as a philosophy (a group of philosophies, actually).

I'd say it's a philosophy for how to apply a tool, but not an independent philosophy. That's part of what I'm saying here-- many people seem to confuse the philosophy a scientist uses in order to apply the tool, which is more like an actor in a play, for a full-blown independent philosophy, which of course is not science but rather a philosophical (subjective) choice inspired by science.

Though saying that it "has authority" for what it is used to quantify would still be correct, I just want to note that it sounded like you were saying something along the lines of a different kind of authority...

I was-- I was talking about the tendency for those who know a lot of science to use that authority to discuss philosophy like the way a celebrity talks politics.

Nonetheless, I personally don't believe in "subective" reality, one way or the other.

A perfectly valid position, and probably one inspired by science, but it does not arise from science, that's all I'm saying.

I believe that there is one answer, one reality, and though all of us (subjectively, admittedly) perceive it in our own way, there is still one truth.

To give you an example of the difficulty of applying science to that belief is the question: is an electron a particle or a wave? It depends on the context-- truth is slippery that way. It's a profound concept even when approached objectively.

But if reality isn't really reality, and that claim is actually *true*, then you still have only one objective reality: We just don't exist within it. I don't think that it's possible to have two contradictory realities...

Some might argue that wave/particle duality is a kind of contradiction, though I really don't view it that way myself.

But nonetheless, opinions are often based upon facts; facts that *can* be quantified. If those facts that you base your opinion on are shown to be faulty, then one should be able to question your opinion.

Yes, for opinions based on facts. But beliefs are not quite "opinions", they don't need to be based on any facts at all.

(I.E.: "Blacks are lesser than whites, thanks to genetics." "God created the Earth 6000 years ago." Here's a real argument I saw one time: "Proof of an omnipotent force -- a woman was able to lift a car to save her child.")

Yes, I want to clarify that when something is claimed to be objectively true, that is a scientific claim, and involves the scientific approach to logic and evidence, because that's by far the most proven successful approach to objective truth. Interestingly, no one knows why.

[George]

In this Face example, we are assuming the subjective belief was born from this very question of it being a constructed face or not. If no face had been seen, no belief would have been established.

True enough, but that still doesn't mean that this is the main reason for the belief, only a contributing factor. If you already believe there were Martians capable of such a feat, you then look at it in a different light than someone using the rock formation as support for the existence of such Martians.

Yes, very much so and I should have qualified the particular subjective (or sub-subjective) belief to restrict it to those who hold to the existence of Martians strictly because of the Face. Although any one can choose to believe in the idea of Martians, regardless of objective evidence, science can make this believe more or less reasonable depending on the light it sheds on the objects which reflect that light.

Nevertheless, the key point in your statement is the “different light” idea. How’s this?... the light from science will illuminate objective elements within a subjective view in proportion to the proximity those elements are to science. [I figure mentioning the inverse square law would not add much sizzle to it. ] Is that any better than the hydraulic approach?

Thanks to science, they can compare their original facial images with many more revealing images. The face is no longer there, thus their reason to believe has all be vanished.

It would have to not be their main reason for believing, that's true. But for many human pursuits, the presence of objective evidence is not the primary impetus for a belief.

Yes, that is why the Face example helps reveal how science can have significant influence in very specific cases. But, I admit this is rare for any significant influence to come from science on most beliefs; yet not so rare for at least some influence. My hope is that we understand better how a specific belief can be influenced in some way by science, and that an individual could reach a point where he or she discovers a new result in their own personal balance scale of unreasonableness vs. reasonableness because of science. [Of course, other subjective factors can also tip the scales the other way, too.]

...you're in the river Science and I'm in the Subjective Sea.

Yes, I think you are basically saying that one can choose to use science to bolster those elements of a belief system that overlap with objective testing, and I'm saying that one can also choose to erect a firewall between all conclusions you draw when you apply objective reasoning, and all those you draw when you don't.

Nice point...Captain. I think we all have some of these firewalls. The river of Science is limited in how much it can influence the Subjective Sea, which is probably why no sea is named after a river. [I think none are.]

...it's kind of like a movie critic, let's say. You can go to school and construct a scientific description of what constitutes a well-made film, or you can just watch it and say whether or not you felt entertained by it. You can choose to unite those, so that you let your scientific understanding color your enjoyment, or you can choose to keep those entirely separate-- or some combination. (Imagine a critic saying, "this film seemed to intentionally avoid all the elements a good movie should have, but did so in such an ingenious way that I really liked it.")

I think I see what you’re saying, though the science elements are a little harder to imagine as I suspect you might be refering to scientific polls of subjective opinions.

Regardless, your point is that there is a blend of both and I am sure it will always be different for each individual. If the film is a historical documentary, then the blend is changed considerably, though it may make it more enjoyable. [This gets closer to where Irishman is trying to go, I think.]

So I guess we will just have to disagree.

I think so. I'm saying that existence is actually a terribly profound concept, far deeper than any science, but not in the way we superficially use it in our day-to-day kind of movie-going existence.

You two have me confused because I am not sure just how you disagree. It seems to me one sees tails and another heads, but it is the same coin. Science has limits, yes [Ken’s “final cause”]; the more objective claims surface from a belief, the more science has something to say about these specific elements; the more non-allegorical the belief, the more likely objective claims will surface, thus the greater the chance science can influence, though limited, this belief. [Am I close, Irishman?]

[Ken G]

Nevertheless, the key point in your statement is the “different light” idea. How’s this?... the light from science will illuminate objective elements within a subjective view in proportion to the proximity those elements are to science. [I figure mentioning the inverse square law would not add much sizzle to it. ] Is that any better than the hydraulic approach?

I rather like this idea of some things reflecting the light of science back for us to see, and others acting more like "dark matter" in the presence of scientific illumination!

My hope is that we understand better how a specific belief can be influenced in some way by science, and that an individual could reach a point where he or she discovers a new result in their own personal balance scale of unreasonableness vs. reasonableness because of science.

I think the way this works is, new beliefs often require some kind of scaffolding to "fit them in" with what is already believed. Oftentimes, that scaffolding must span gaps in objective knowledge, and when that happens, a "story" is invented and included with the belief. This is the "God of the gaps" phenomenon. It should not have been the purpose of the belief to erect this poorly supported scaffolding, because that's the "magic bullet" approach to doing science, and the result has no practical application. But the point is, those connections just provide some concreteness, their science is generally lousy and almost always requires replacement when later on good science comes along. This gets confused with the belief itself, when in fact it is a trivial component of the belief. People should be willing to "swap in" scientific explanations for objectively testable components of that scaffolding, it really doesn't affect the beliefs in any significant way, it just provides a more reliable scaffolding to make those connections. Unfortunately, many people have very little flexibiliity in this regard. I think my "scaffolding" is your "Overlap", so I agree that the "firewall" approach is not necessarily going to create the most solid foundation for one's beliefs.

Regardless, your point is that there is a blend of both and I am sure it will always be different for each individual. If the film is a historical documentary, then the blend is changed considerably, though it may make it more enjoyable. [This gets closer to where Irishman is trying to go, I think.]

Yes, the blends of all these concepts make it a pretty inscrutable soup, and some situations are more cut-and-dried and easier to discuss, but those steer away from the real profound issues that we're trying to approach closer to. I'm mostly cautioning that we should err on the side of inclusiveness of things we cannot fathom, rather than exclusiveness, which foments unnecessary and unfruitful conflict. That conflict is of a totally different nature than the conflict of different scientific theories, which is a healthy part of doing science, but which are all judged by the same criteria.

It seems to me one sees tails and another heads, but it is the same coin. Science has limits, yes [Ken’s “final cause”]; the more objective claims surface from a belief, the more science has something to say about these specific elements; the more non-allegorical the belief, the more likely objective claims will surface, thus the greater the chance science can influence, though limited, this belief. [Am I close, Irishman?]

You are seeing this quite similarly to the way I am. I think Irishman is seeing it in a more black-and-white way, rather than the continuum you describe-- he is looking for simplified cases to more easily probe this black-and-white distinction between what is a belief and what actually exists. I'm saying that it's not even possible to make that distinction in the murkiest situations, because there are both subjective and objective elements, and it is still a subtle distinction even in the most purely objective areas of science (because science replaces reality with conceptualizations of reality, and whether that is an effective simplification or an incorrect oversimplification is often a subjective component of objective science.)

[George]

I rather like this idea of some things reflecting the light of science back for us to see, and others acting more like "dark matter" in the presence of scientific illumination!

Ok, I like it too because many subjective vies can be much closer to the light and need not be far away to be too dim to see the influence science has upon it. Hopefully, the number of things in the universe are enough to give us the material metaphors necessary to allow the likes of us to describe it.

I think the way this works is, new beliefs often require some kind of scaffolding to "fit them in" with what is already believed.

Yes and I like the scaffolding metaphor since new, or altered, beliefs are a construction project in themselves.

Oftentimes, that scaffolding must span gaps in objective knowledge, and when that happens, a "story" is invented and included with the belief. This is the "God of the gaps" phenomenon. It should not have been the purpose of the belief to erect this poorly supported scaffolding, because that's the "magic bullet" approach to doing science, and the result has no practical application.

I know little of the "God of the gaps" belief but I would think you are seeing it correctly, though I would assume they would claim the practical application would be the improved strength from the scaffold itself. Thus, a belief becomes more comprehensive and harmonious. This assumes the scaffolding weathers the storms.

My belief does not welcome filling in objective gaps as the Roadbuilder built the road properly the first time; any pothole patching means you are on the wrong road. Therefore, as science learns more, the original and sound road will become more easily seen. For instance, the Earth may have been describeable by an observer as being "without form and void" at one time, likely during its formation in the thick accretion disk; a disk that appeared watery blue, due to neighborly, bright stellar giants. This is my scaffolding, which still needs some help.

But the point is, those connections just provide some concreteness, their science is generally lousy and almost always requires replacement when later on good science comes along. This gets confused with the belief itself, when in fact it is a trivial component of the belief.

That is true for many, but in the cases when the scaffolding has collapsed or is obviously too weak, it is not so trivial. If the scaffolding manager is seen as the object of their faith, so much more the problem. Usually scaffolding failure doesn't take place, but rather, comes under ridicule by science whenever the light of science is bright enough to illuminate scaffolding weaknesses in certain sections. The Cydonian Face proved to be very poor scaffolding for the Martian belief. [Whether it has collapsed or not is probably going deeper than an analogy can take us.]

People should be willing to "swap in" scientific explanations for objectively testable components of that scaffolding, it really doesn't affect the beliefs in any significant way, it just provides a more reliable scaffolding to make those connections. Unfortunately, many people have very little flexibiliity in this regard.

Yep, very inflexible. We do not like unbelieving positive things already integrated into our beliefs.

I think my "scaffolding" is your "Overlap",

Probably because you seem to be using the scaffolding in an objective sense which would also be those elements that exist in the Overlap, and subject to some degree of scientific scrutiny.

I'm mostly cautioning that we should err on the side of inclusiveness of things we cannot fathom, rather than exclusiveness, which foments unnecessary and unfruitful conflict.

Yes, and this understanding is the primary merit to this thread.

I think Irishman is seeing it in a more black-and-white way, rather than the continuum you describe-- he is looking for simplified cases to more easily probe this black-and-white distinction between what is a belief and what actually exists. I'm saying that it's not even possible to make that distinction in the murkiest situations, because there are both subjective and objective elements, and it is still a subtle distinction even in the most purely objective areas of science (because science replaces reality with conceptualizations of reality, and whether that is an effective simplification or an incorrect oversimplification is often a subjective component of objective science.)

Yes, I would say the distinction between "belief and what actually exists" is a subjective field of argument. However, the "it actually exists" subjective view has far more exposure to scrutiny from science. [That is where I thought Irishman was headed.]

[SolusLupus]

That's an interesting point, that it's possible to coerce someone into having a subjective belief. I'm sure that's part of what Orwell was saying-- that it is possible to coerce so effectively that you can control subjective beliefs.

And control it to the point that, even when presented with an objective equation (I.E., "What's 2+2?" -- if you have two apples, and you're given two more apples, you do not have five apples; this is a fundamental objective truth), you can be coerced to disregard that physical fact for a mental idea (I.E., "Big Brother makes up reality")

I'm talking about subjective beliefs in the presence of freedom of thought (and freedom of religion), but you have pointed out yet another class of problems that one must be on the lookout for. I agree that objective answers are a kind of "antidote" to coerced subjective thinking-- the kind of subjective thinking I'm interested in exists largely in realms where there simply is no objective answer, unless the simplifications used are mistaken for the "real thing". But one shouldn't even do that in science.

But when you talk about religion, you *are* talking about objective facts most of the time. If you say, "The world was created by God", or "The world was created 6000 years ago", or "The world is inhabited by invisible spirits that make you do evil things", or "Ghosts exist", you're making a claim of fact, not opinion. Thus, there *is* an objective answer, though it may not be proven one way or the other. That doesn't mean that there isn't an objective answer; just that we don't know it yet.

I'd say it's a philosophy for how to apply a tool, but not an independent philosophy. That's part of what I'm saying here-- many people seem to confuse the philosophy a scientist uses in order to apply the tool, which is more like an actor in a play, for a full-blown independent philosophy, which of course is not science but rather a philosophical (subjective) choice inspired by science.

Ehhhh... maybe.

I was-- I was talking about the tendency for those who know a lot of science to use that authority to discuss philosophy like the way a celebrity talks politics.

Disagreed. A scientist is not necessarily ignorant on the issue; a celebrity often is.

I still like what Frog March said; that Dawkins knew nothing about religion 'cause he considered it "rubbish". If that's not ad hominem, I don't know what is. "He doesn't like it, therefore he must know nothing about it!" Heh.

Yes, for opinions based on facts. But beliefs are not quite "opinions", they don't need to be based on any facts at all.

Which is your (subjective) belief, which does not coincide with my (subjective) belief.

I think that if you claim that something exists, that you should have reason to. If not, then you are making things up; and that's pretty much it.

[Ken G]

I know little of the "God of the gaps" belief but I would think you are seeing it correctly, though I would assume they would claim the practical application would be the improved strength from the scaffold itself.

What I mean by this is that sometimes religion is used to provide explanations for objectively observed and measured phenomena, like lightning. People are uneasy about what they don't understand, so a story, like Zeus throwing bolts, is invented. People may or may not take it seriously, depending on the state of science and their own education thereof, but inventing stories without testing is a poor way to do science, and it has the embarrassing problem of going "on the record" with an explanation that will almost certainly be supplanted by science in time. If people view it as a kind of "placekeeper" while waiting for science to step in, that's what I mean by "scaffolding", but when they take it too seriously and reject the science when it comes along, that's when your Overlap rears up.

That is true for many, but in the cases when the scaffolding has collapsed or is obviously too weak, it is not so trivial. If the scaffolding manager is seen as the object of their faith, so much more the problem.

Well, personally, I don't think the faithful should hold their deity responsible for the scaffolding they themselves have erected, even if they were under the impression that they were following the deity's "instructions." Maybe they heard the instructions wrong, or maybe it was intended to be just that-- a scaffolding, not a building.

Yes, I would say the distinction between "belief and what actually exists" is a subjective field of argument. However, the "it actually exists" subjective view has far more exposure to scrutiny from science. [That is where I thought Irishman was headed.]

[/quote]I agree that is what he's saying, but my take is that science really has nothing inherent to do with "existence", it has to do with "objective testing". It is the philosopher who equates, or does not equate, those two concepts. Science simply pretends things exist, it makes zero difference if they do or not. If it works, it's fine, and if it works really well, then we start to think maybe we are "on to" something in terms of real existence, but that part never comes from science itself-- it's purely subjective.

[Ken G]

And control it to the point that, even when presented with an objective equation (I.E., "What's 2+2?" -- if you have two apples, and you're given two more apples, you do not have five apples; this is a fundamental objective truth), you can be coerced to disregard that physical fact for a mental idea (I.E., "Big Brother makes up reality")

No question, that is the greatest evil of all. On that score, I think both religion and science have common enemies, and should both "watch their backs" equally (note that totalitarian regimes tend to try to control both scientific and religious ideas with an equally iron fist).

But when you talk about religion, you *are* talking about objective facts most of the time. If you say, "The world was created by God", or "The world was created 6000 years ago", or "The world is inhabited by invisible spirits that make you do evil things", or "Ghosts exist", you're making a claim of fact, not opinion.

The problem is, none of the people who are making those statements can offer you a meaningful definition of the word "exists", that is actually consistent with the manner by which they came upon the belief. Indeed, scientists have a pretty tough time doing that also, but when they do so, it becomes entirely clear what limitations they are working under. This entire thread comes down to my saying: "define exist first, and then we'll talk. But be clear that your definition of existence does not rule out someone else's. What is your criteria for distinguishing that which exists from that which doesn't? Is that an absolute criteria that covers all possibilities?" I argue that a vast amount of pointless conflict results from neither side clarifying the answer to those questions, and instead just throwing around their own subjective definitions as if they applied to everyone else, on both sides of the aisle.

Thus, there *is* an objective answer, though it may not be proven one way or the other.

That is not a scientific claim, because science cannot provide objective answers to all questions. It cannot even provide an objective answer to the simultaneous momentum and location of a particle, it can only say "there is no such objective answer." And that's just one particle! So when science is allowed to say "the objective answer is that there is no objective answer", you begin to see where subjectivity takes hold.

Which is your (subjective) belief, which does not coincide with my (subjective) belief.

I don't expect any of my subjective beliefs to coincide with yours, that's very much my point here. Science is partly about identifying objective questions, yet some mistake its purpose for providing the answer to all questions.

I think that if you claim that something exists, that you should have reason to. If not, then you are making things up; and that's pretty much it.

But you have overlooked the most important reason of all-- why do I believe something exists: Because it gives me value to do so. Is science any different?

[George]

If people view it as a kind of "placekeeper" while waiting for science to step in, that's what I mean by "scaffolding", but when they take it too seriously and reject the science when it comes along, that's when your Overlap rears up.

Yes, I see now and I like it even better, though you are using scaffolding as a temporary subjective structure (ie braces) integral to the belief and not just to allow the brick layers something to work upon. Nevertheless, it is a good analgoy.

Well, personally, I don't think the faithful should hold their deity responsible for the scaffolding they themselves have erected, even if they were under the impression that they were following the deity's "instructions." Maybe they heard the instructions wrong, or maybe it was intended to be just that-- a scaffolding, not a building.

When the scaffolding comes into question, new denominations can form or they take another look at the instructions. Usually nothing happens and some scaffolding managers jump up and down on the scaffolding to assure all their contributors to have faith (and, hence, boast of greater faith) and to ignore the scaffolding questions. If the light of science is the source of the questioning (because objective elements have arisen to allow it), they should spend less time jumping and more time re-reading.

I agree that is what he's saying, but my take is that science really has nothing inherent to do with "existence", it has to do with "objective testing". It is the philosopher who equates, or does not equate, those two concepts. Science simply pretends things exist, it makes zero difference if they do or not. If it works, it's fine, and if it works really well, then we start to think maybe we are "on to" something in terms of real existence, but that part never comes from science itself-- it's purely subjective.

Agreed, science can not claim a final determination of reality, and good science makes it clear that it won't even try to go to an end point, but rather work on improving the models that express what we see.

So we agree in kind, but I think Irishman was trying to lead us toward a discussion regarding the degree to which science can add insight to a given belief. I trust he will correct me, if it is otherwise. It is this degree of insight issue that intrigues me the most and why I like analogies which correlate scientific insight acting upon objective elements of a belief.

[SolusLupus]

No question, that is the greatest evil of all. On that score, I think both religion and science have common enemies, and should both "watch their backs" equally (note that totalitarian regimes tend to try to control both scientific and religious ideas with an equally iron fist).

Naturally.

That is not a scientific claim, because science cannot provide objective answers to all questions. It cannot even provide an objective answer to the simultaneous momentum and location of a particle, it can only say "there is no such objective answer." And that's just one particle! So when science is allowed to say "the objective answer is that there is no objective answer", you begin to see where subjectivity takes hold.

As far as I know, that bit with the particle has more to do with observation and our ability (or lack of ability to) observe.

I don't expect any of my subjective beliefs to coincide with yours, that's very much my point here. Science is partly about identifying objective questions, yet some mistake its purpose for providing the answer to all questions.

Maybe not all, no, but most questions that can be answered via objective means.

But you have overlooked the most important reason of all-- why do I believe something exists: Because it gives me value to do so. Is science any different?

Yes, science is. It does not make a claim without having the means to demonstrate it. You wish to make a claim because you just want it to be true.

While I'm all for you not being forced to believe in something, your belief should have no impact on those that don't wish to give it credence, as there is no credence to give it. The only value that you give it is the value that you want to give it. You only think it's reality because you *want* to believe it's reality. That, to me, is not enough reason to respect a belief.

Go ahead and have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief: But do not be surprised when no one takes your claim seriously.

Because when your religious belief (which has no official objective backing) starts to get involved with politics, technology (and biotechnology), etc., then you're taking an unsupported belief, and influencing the world (and others, who may not hold that belief) with it. So in that sense, I am with people like Dawkins in their belief that the church and organizations like it should have little power; though I'd be fine with them being charity organizations, as long as they do not withhold charities from those that desire it (which has been done; "Convert to Christianity, or we won't give you this food we brought!", and then left the people to die when they wouldn't convert).

[Ken G]

As far as I know, that bit with the particle has more to do with observation and our ability (or lack of ability to) observe.

Actually, it's quite a bit more fundamental than that-- our ability to observe is science's ability to address objective reality.

Maybe not all, no, but most questions that can be answered via objective means.

Has it occurred to you that this may be more a statement about the kinds of questions we choose to ask than a fundamental truth about how things are?

Yes, science is. It does not make a claim without having the means to demonstrate it. You wish to make a claim because you just want it to be true.

But at the end of the day, the reason we use science to inform our answers is simply because of the value we then derive from those answers. That is no different from any mode of inquiry, only the type of value changes.

While I'm all for you not being forced to believe in something, your belief should have no impact on those that don't wish to give it credence, as there is no credence to give it.

I am not telling you my beliefs, I am talking about what science is. This is an objective issue, involving pure logic and the widely known rules of science.

That, to me, is not enough reason to respect a belief.

But you do not speak from science, nor logic, when you say that, this is my point. You are just speaking from opinion, and carry none of the authority of science in that remark. This is why it has no sway over others who feel differently.

Go ahead and have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief: But do not be surprised when no one takes your claim seriously.

But if you look, objectively, at the world of humans, do you see "no one" taking various beliefs seriously?

Because when your religious belief (which has no official objective backing) starts to get involved with politics, technology (and biotechnology), etc., then you're taking an unsupported belief, and influencing the world (and others, who may not hold that belief) with it.

We both live in democracies. That means, whatever views have the greatest traction with the populace, will rule the day. That is why I feel scientists will increase their political relevance when they learn to be better communicators. But that's politics.

[Irishman]

Ken G said:

Science admits it's simplifications, and seeks to correct them when something better comes along.

But some are inherent. Nothing better than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will ever come along, if we have it right. And that's an inherently scientific context-- if you go outside that, the inescapable limitations of science become even more important.

I get your point. I hope you get mine. Unfortunately, I fear to continue will lead into areas off limits.

Ken G said:
...it's kind of like a movie critic, let's say. You can go to school and construct a scientific description of what constitutes a well-made film, or you can just watch it and say whether or not you felt entertained by it. You can choose to unite those, so that you let your scientific understanding color your enjoyment, or you can choose to keep those entirely separate-- or some combination. (Imagine a critic saying, "this film seemed to intentionally avoid all the elements a good movie should have, but did so in such an ingenious way that I really liked it.")

That still seems grounded in matching the two. A better example is, "This film lacked all the elements of what a good film should have, but I enjoyed it anyway." Pure subjectivity. No ingenuity required. Of course there are movies made that way - Verhoeven* and Showgirls comes to mind. Except for that "I liked it anyway" part.

I think the way this works is, new beliefs often require some kind of scaffolding to "fit them in" with what is already believed. Oftentimes, that scaffolding must span gaps in objective knowledge, and when that happens, a "story" is invented and included with the belief. This is the "God of the gaps" phenomenon. It should not have been the purpose of the belief to erect this poorly supported scaffolding, because that's the "magic bullet" approach to doing science, and the result has no practical application. But the point is, those connections just provide some concreteness, their science is generally lousy and almost always requires replacement when later on good science comes along. This gets confused with the belief itself, when in fact it is a trivial component of the belief. People should be willing to "swap in" scientific explanations for objectively testable components of that scaffolding, it really doesn't affect the beliefs in any significant way, it just provides a more reliable scaffolding to make those connections. Unfortunately, many people have very little flexibiliity in this regard.

[bolding added]

This is an interesting analogy. I can see how this works, but only by taking a step back on what is the belief that needs to be supported. I think I'm too hung up on the concrete. Say there's a belief - "Humanity is significant. I am significant." That belief is floating out there, and the holder erects a scaffolding to anchor and support it. That scaffolding is the stories and mythology crafted to provide an answer. The answer itself isn't really important, just that there is an answer. But people get hung up on the answer, the scaffolding, rather than the intent of supporting the original belief. Is this what you mean?

George said:
If the scaffolding manager is seen as the object of their faith, so much more the problem.

The scaffolding manager being the human involved in building, directing, cultivating, and maintaining the scaffolding the people use to support the belief?

Ken G said:
This entire thread comes down to my saying: "define exist first, and then we'll talk. But be clear that your definition of existence does not rule out someone else's. What is your criteria for distinguishing that which exists from that which doesn't? Is that an absolute criteria that covers all possibilities?"

So in order to hold a conversation, first we have to define belief, then we have to define exist, and only then can we begin to discuss what it means to believe something exists. The worst part is that all our conceptual words (beyond physical objects) at some point become circularly defined. "What is existence? What is. What is is? Things that exist." Some tracks are larger circles, but the result is the same. (Ever had one of those running definition arguments where everyone keeps citing dictionary entries and eventually they lead back to the original word?)

I guess this really sums up the fundamental difference between us, the source of the disagreement. We have yet to iron out the definitions of those words satisfactorily for both of us, and are still running in circles.

-----
* Verhoeven has been quoted in interviews as intentionally setting movie expectations and formulas on end. His intent is to shatter expectations and explore the stereotypes. His movies that do so are usually loathed at the box office. E.g. Starship Troopers and the aforementioned Showgirls.

[George]

The scaffolding manager being the human involved in building, directing, cultivating, and maintaining the scaffolding the people use to support the belief?

Well, I messed-up understanding what was meant by the scaffolding. I was trying to bend it to my own definition.

So in order to hold a conversation, first we have to define belief, then we have to define exist, and only then can we begin to discuss what it means to believe something exists. The worst part is that all our conceptual words (beyond physical objects) at some point become circularly defined. "What is existence? What is. What is is?

Gee, are y'all gonna run for president, too?

Exist - Anything directly measurable. If it can be measured indirectly, its probability of existence is proportional to the degree the evidence so indicates (eg black holes, dark matter).

Belief - Everything else. However, it can incorporate that which exists as part of its structure.

Math - a subset of belief that is proveable.

That'll be $0.02, please.

[Ken G]

That still seems grounded in matching the two. A better example is, "This film lacked all the elements of what a good film should have, but I enjoyed it anyway." Pure subjectivity.

Yes, one can go that way too. I mixed in a little "ingenuity" because I didn't want the reaction "you liked it because you have no taste", etc.

Say there's a belief - "Humanity is significant. I am significant." That belief is floating out there, and the holder erects a scaffolding to anchor and support it. That scaffolding is the stories and mythology crafted to provide an answer. The answer itself isn't really important, just that there is an answer. But people get hung up on the answer, the scaffolding, rather than the intent of supporting the original belief. Is this what you mean?

Yes, that's a perfect example. It's a profound and significant belief, associated with a lot of unimportant placekeepers (the physics of what happened) that people insert because they don't have anything better to put in there. Those beliefs have a different purpose, they are like when we tell children that babies come from storks, and later on they find out a more scientific understanding, but it doesn't really matter-- it served its purpose (to avoid awkward discussions, in that case!).

So in order to hold a conversation, first we have to define belief, then we have to define exist, and only then can we begin to discuss what it means to believe something exists.

Precisely, but the real point is, that is the conversation! Once you've done that, you have little left to discuss, you have already communicated.

The worst part is that all our conceptual words (beyond physical objects) at some point become circularly defined. "What is existence? What is. What is is? Things that exist."

Yes, I think you are in the realm where the questions matter more than the answers. An uncomfortable place for scientists, I realize!

(Ever had one of those running definition arguments where everyone keeps citing dictionary entries and eventually they lead back to the original word?)

Yes, I've used the analogy that if an alien species wanted to know about humans, you could just hand them a dictionary and say, "here you go, it's all in there". But that's a joke, because a dictionary only defines the connections between words, not the words themselves. Only experience can define words. That is the fundamental place where subjectivity enters, and we can only seek objectivity in shared experience.

I guess this really sums up the fundamental difference between us, the source of the disagreement. We have yet to iron out the definitions of those words satisfactorily for both of us, and are still running in circles.

This is because I'm not even trying to define the words, I am just saying that there is a scientific definition, and there are also other definitions. Science is founded on objectivity, but does not extend to everything, especially since objectivity is only born from subjectivity, not the other way around.

[Ken G]

Exist - Anything directly measurable. If it can be measured indirectly, its probability of existence is proportional to the degree the evidence so indicates (eg black holes, dark matter).

I would use a more inclusive definition of "exist", because human existence is not among the above, and this must be viewed as the most important existence of all. I would say you have defined "Objective truth". I define "exist" as everything that can leave a footprint when you intersect it with objective truth, but it does not itself have to be objectively true. In short, it exists if it has effects, and whatever of those effects are objectively reproducible, are the intersection of science and existence.

[George]

I would use a more inclusive definition of "exist", because human existence is not among the above, and this must be viewed as the most important existence of all. I would say you have defined "Objective truth".

Yes, "subjective" and "objective" are now indelible imprints thanks to this thread.

Humans are measurable. [I am trying to reduce one measurement, in fact.] So you've lost me.

I define "exist" as everything that can leave a footprint when you intersect it with objective truth, but it does not itself have to be objectively true. In short, it exists if it has effects, and whatever of those effects are objectively reproducible, are the intersection of science and existence.

How does this differ from the indirect measurement idea? Dark matter leaves a "footprint", I think, or we could say we measure it indirectly. There is strong circumstantial evidence for dark matter, is another way to say it.

[Ken G]

Humans are measurable.

You must be using the word in a different way, more like "measure means is affected by or coupled to". That's what I meant also by existence, but I tend to restrict "measure" for objective, preferably quantitative, results. As such, I would not say humans are measurable, because we experience humans mostly through one subjective experience, and a bit through the subjective filter of how we look at others (reflections of ourselves, usually). But I see that you are just taking a different meaning for measure-- it's as Irishman says, you pretty much have to define every word, and then every word in every definition, and even then you only achieve an erroneous sense that you are even talking about the same thing! Such is the curse of subjective subjects, to coin a phrase.

How does this differ from the indirect measurement idea? Dark matter leaves a "footprint", I think, or we could say we measure it indirectly. There is strong circumstantial evidence for dark matter, is another way to say it.

True, but that evidence comes from other objective measurements, like the trajectory of stars, etc. It's still in the objective realm, while "describe pleasure and pain" is not. We just assume we have shared experience, and we probably do to a large extent, but the degree of subjectivity is very hard to specify or quantify, so I wasn't using the term "measure".

[George]

You must be using the word in a different way, more like "measure means is affected by or coupled to". That's what I meant also by existence, but I tend to restrict "measure" for objective, preferably quantitative, results.

That is how it is intended, an mks kind of system, and assume most would see it that way. We need a word that connects our abilities to recognize something in a way all can, or should, be able to agree. Where we can't agree puts the subject into the subjective, I think.

As such, I would not say humans are measurable, because we experience humans mostly through one subjective experience, and a bit through the subjective filter of how we look at others (reflections of ourselves, usually).

Using the objective approach, the existence of a human is obvious due to the ability to measure them; mass, size, structure, components, DNA, etc. are all objective evidence to their "existence".

It's still in the objective realm, while "describe pleasure and pain" is not.

Yes, indirect, or circumstantial scientific evidence, is in the exist category since we are dealing with objective evidence. Further, because the observed evidence for something to exist is quantifiable, then we know, to some degree, a measurable parameter of the object in question. So, this indirectly measured object is still in the objective sense.

It's still in the objective realm, while "describe pleasure and pain" is not. We just assume we have shared experience, and we probably do to a large extent, but the degree of subjectivity is very hard to specify or quantify, so I wasn't using the term "measure".

Pleasure and pain do exist because we all have experienced it in some way. It can be measured relative to other experessions. However, I agree with you that they fall into the subjective because they are not quantifiable in the broader sense. Therefore, one might consider them weak objective elements within a broader subjective realm because pleasure and pain do exist but contribute such limited quantifiable evidence.

[Disinfo Agent]

Pleasure and pain do exist because we all have experienced it in some way.

We experience our own pleasure and pain. As for the pleasure and the pain of others, we essentially just infer them. Case in point.
They are personal, not shared experiences, so in this discussion I would tend to label them as "subjective", like Ken G.

[George]

We experience our own pleasure and pain. As for the pleasure and the pain of others, we essentially just infer them. Case in point.
They are personal, not shared experiences, so in this discussion I would tend to label them as "subjective", like Ken G.

Yes, I agree which is why I put them in the subjective realm. The only merit they have as limited objective elements is the likelyhood of the vast majority of us being able to distinguish between the two. Thus, I assume, a person would be able to give a true or false answer to their existence even though these emotions are too slippery for serious quantification.

[Ken G]

Using the objective approach, the existence of a human is obvious due to the ability to measure them; mass, size, structure, components, DNA, etc. are all objective evidence to their "existence".

True, but let's face it, these things matter not much more than the density of rock. What we really care about is the human experience-- does that exist, objectively? How is it measured? Can I "fool" your instruments with a clever replica?

Pleasure and pain do exist because we all have experienced it in some way. It can be measured relative to other experessions. However, I agree with you that they fall into the subjective because they are not quantifiable in the broader sense.

There's a lot of gray between objective and subjective, it's quite a complicated soup. That may be the most "objective" think emerging from this thread!

[Ken G]

We experience our own pleasure and pain. As for the pleasure and the pain of others, we essentially just infer them.

Yeah, that's another deep question. Is there really such a thing as empathy, or is it just seeing other people as reflections of ourselves, like, how do we feel when we act the way they're acting? There is certainly shared experience, but how can we ever know just how shared it is? This is more gray between objective and subjective, so how can we rely entirely on objective science when we don't even know if objective measures are appropriate?

[Irishman]

Ken G said:

So in order to hold a conversation, first we have to define belief, then we have to define exist, and only then can we begin to discuss what it means to believe something exists.

Precisely, but the real point is, that is the conversation! Once you've done that, you have little left to discuss, you have already communicated.

I don't know, there may still be a need to explore the connection between the two concepts.

[Ken G]

Yes, that's true-- I suppose I was thinking that good definitions would make the next step of seeing the connections fairly easy. But perhaps such good definitions are not even possible. What I really mean is, there is probably a kind of "conservation of difficulty" here-- if you satisfy yourself with simple and straightforward definitions with little thought behind them, you will have difficulty using them to reach any significant insights, whereas you can bog down in even trying to get the definitions that make the rest easy. The best approach might be to "split the difference"-- shoot for sophisticated and profound definitions that take you part of the way, but leave yourself somewhere to go with them before you reach your ultimate insights. In my opinion, the error is more often on the side of going with too simplistic definitions, and throwing out what matters before you even begin.

[Disinfo Agent]

Is there really such a thing as empathy, or is it just seeing other people as reflections of ourselves, like, how do we feel when we act the way they're acting? There is certainly shared experience, but how can we ever know just how shared it is?

You won't believe what this conversation has just reminded me of...

[DyerWolf]

Is there really such a thing as empathy, or is it just seeing other people as reflections of ourselves, like, how do we feel when we act the way they're acting?

Ever been married?

[DyerWolf]

I think what you're describing may also be empathy, but of a different sort - numerous studies have shown that people can read other people's body language and facial expressions exceedingly well, and that when they do, they experience similar emotions as the other person.

One thought is that this is a survival instinct.

I know that seeing someone too far away from to communicate with express fear and alarm does raise your adrenalin levels - especially if that person is a child or someone you care about.

[George]

True, but let's face it, these things matter not much more than the density of rock.

Yes but rock foundations are what we want. At least we know humans exist in a physical sense. Of course, it can get pretty goofy from there.

What we really care about is the human experience-- does that exist, objectively? How is it measured? Can I "fool" your instruments with a clever replica?

I think it is subjective but they do exhibit some limited objective evidence. Just as in pleasure and pain have some relative differences between them allows for some objectiveness to which one is which, but quantifying the degree of each is, admittedly, far too subjective.

There's a lot of gray between objective and subjective, it's quite a complicated soup. That may be the most "objective" think emerging from this thread!

Yes and one that I encourage as well. Of course, I naturally prefer a more colorful spectrum (excluding yellow).

So far, I think my 2 cent formula makes a little sense.

The best approach might be to "split the difference"-- shoot for sophisticated and profound definitions that take you part of the way, but leave yourself somewhere to go with them before you reach your ultimate insights.

Yes. Going part of the way should give you a greater consensus. Metaphors help here.

I know that seeing someone too far away from to communicate with express fear and alarm does raise your adrenalin levels - especially if that person is a child or someone you care about.

Yes, chemical changes are noteable and quantifiable but isolating them to a specific, single emotion will not be so easy. Thus, you have partial objectivity only, which is better than nothing, I suppose.

[satori]

[QUOTE]

I think what you're describing may also be empathy, but of a different sort - numerous studies have shown that people can read other people's body language and facial expressions exceedingly well, and that when they do, they experience similar emotions as the other person.

You are pointing at the mirror neurons here. The very real thing of empathy has more to do with our hardwiring, than with errudate philosophical theories. We are linked by Nature. And what God has united, Man shalt not separate.
So long as you can find in the holy books more compelling(!) truths than in philosophy, these irritating cultural relics won't go away !

[Disinfo Agent]

A thread posted in another forum that has some connection with this discussion.