Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Street Epistomology

SeekerForTruth
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 4:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
This is a thread for the practice of Street Epistemology, a non-confrontational way in order to examine someone's supernatural beliefs.

If anyone would like to examine their supernatural beliefs this way then please come forward.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 5:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 4:53:07 PM, SeekerForTruth wrote:
This is a thread for the practice of Street Epistemology, a non-confrontational way in order to examine someone's supernatural beliefs.

If anyone would like to examine their supernatural beliefs this way then please come forward.

So, is this like a well-defined tactical package for Socrates-ing people you randomly encounter? I'm all for trying to find ways to inject rigor into conversation without creating an adversarial environment, but my Google on the subject pretty much just coaches being cognizant of the need for open dialogue and checking yourself to make sure you're not just trying to Win the Conversation.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:52:15 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 4:53:07 PM, SeekerForTruth wrote:
This is a thread for the practice of Street Epistemology, a non-confrontational way in order to examine someone's supernatural beliefs.

If anyone would like to examine their supernatural beliefs this way then please come forward.

This "practice of Street Epistemology", it's a dialog approach, correct?

As a dialog, it's fair to assume that the process involves an interaction in which we are examining each other's beliefs. You are proposing a conversation about beliefs, particularly how one arrives at their beliefs, so it's reasonable to assume that you will share how you arrived at your beliefs also, correct?

I'm in, but I expect you to non-confrontationally explain how you arrived at your beliefs too, and because you are representing that you are in some way qualified to "examine beliefs", I expect you to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence", you do, correct?.

OK, now I'll start with a statement of my "supernatural" beliefs in as straightforward a manner as possible:

I want my worldview to provide a sense of orientation, and to that end I take a generous view of the nature of reality, which is to say, I want to hold a worldview that embraces everything, including regions of being that are presumed to exist without their nature being known.

I understand that reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions of faith and transcendence, and I know the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, it's a matter of faith of course, but for those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. Consequently, I have chosen a theistic worldview.

OK, now tell me what you believe, and then let's use the practice of Street Epistemology to examine our respective worldviews.

Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to a dialog that leads to better understanding.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 9:21:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Hmmmm, OK, this Street Epistemology approach certainly is non-confrontational.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 2:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:52:15 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

This "practice of Street Epistemology", it's a dialog approach, correct?
I suspect that the "Street epistemology" idea might work best as a face to face verbal discussion. I think people will say things and immediately read another's body language to identify when the listener is confused, or disagrees, or agrees, with what has just been said.
That said, I will interrupt your post at the point where I would ask for clarification so that we can then proceed, knowing that we are on the same path, crossing the same bridges and heading in the same direction.

As a dialog, it's fair to assume that the process involves an interaction in which we are examining each other's beliefs. You are proposing a conversation about beliefs, particularly how one arrives at their beliefs, so it's reasonable to assume that you will share how you arrived at your beliefs also, correct?

I'm in, but I expect you to non-confrontationally explain how you arrived at your beliefs too, and because you are representing that you are in some way qualified to "examine beliefs",
"qualified"? What qualifications do you think are necessary to examine beliefs?

I expect you to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence", you do, correct?.
Ok, this is my first point of contention. Your use of the word "faith". I have my understanding of the meaning of the word "faith". It may differ from your meaning. As such, there is no the meaning, until we can agree. In which case, it merely becomes our agreed meaning.

I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a belief. That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.

OK, now I'll start with a statement of my "supernatural" beliefs in as straightforward a manner as possible:

I want my worldview to provide a sense of orientation, and to that end I take a generous view of the nature of reality, which is to say, I want to hold a worldview that embraces everything, including regions of being that are presumed to exist without their nature being known.

I understand that reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions of faith and transcendence, and I know the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, it's a matter of faith of course, but for those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. Consequently, I have chosen a theistic worldview.

OK, now tell me what you believe, and then let's use the practice of Street Epistemology to examine our respective worldviews.
I'm not sure that the OP was addressing "worldviews", but specifically, examining one's belief in the supernatural.

P.S. Because you suggested that you might be interested in what I believe; I am an apatheist, i.e., whether god (or the supernatural) exists, or not, is irrelevant. If (and that's a big IF) goddidit then I'd be more interested to find out HOW goddidit, not just spend the rest of my life worshiping him/her/it. Like watching a stage magician, I'm impressed by the performance, but the far more important question is, how did he do it? A mystery is only a mystery while it remains uninvestigated.

Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to a dialog that leads to better understanding.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 3:31:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 2:30:40 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:52:15 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

This "practice of Street Epistemology", it's a dialog approach, correct?
I suspect that the "Street epistemology" idea might work best as a face to face verbal discussion. I think people will say things and immediately read another's body language to identify when the listener is confused, or disagrees, or agrees, with what has just been said.
That said, I will interrupt your post at the point where I would ask for clarification so that we can then proceed, knowing that we are on the same path, crossing the same bridges and heading in the same direction.

As a dialog, it's fair to assume that the process involves an interaction in which we are examining each other's beliefs. You are proposing a conversation about beliefs, particularly how one arrives at their beliefs, so it's reasonable to assume that you will share how you arrived at your beliefs also, correct?

I'm in, but I expect you to non-confrontationally explain how you arrived at your beliefs too, and because you are representing that you are in some way qualified to "examine beliefs",
"qualified"? What qualifications do you think are necessary to examine beliefs?

As I said, minimally I think you need to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence".

I expect you to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence", you do, correct?.
Ok, this is my first point of contention. Your use of the word "faith". I have my understanding of the meaning of the word "faith". It may differ from your meaning. As such, there is no the meaning, until we can agree. In which case, it merely becomes our agreed meaning.

I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.

OK, and on what basis do you contend that one must have "sufficient evidence" to hold a belief? What is the evidence for your belief?

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a belief.

I would argue that your own beliefs are in fact, based on faith, and that it is how you arrived at your beliefs.

That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.

That would be the same thing as saying my faith based beliefs are valid and yours are not.

You are making a base assertion for evidentialism, perhaps you can provide some form of evidence for evidentialism, or at least a good logical explanation in support of it. I will contend that evidentialism self referentially negates itself, there is no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it. The simple fact is, there is no evidence that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it, so according to your evidentialism's own postulate, it should not be believed. The evidence against it is that for the evidence itself to be justified, requires evidence, which would require evidence, and so on, it necessarily ends in an infinite regress fallacy. It is nothing but a faith based belief that says all faith-based beliefs are unjustified.

I will further contend that the majority, if not all, of your own beliefs are not justified, or justifiable based on the postulates of your evidentialism.

OK, now I'll start with a statement of my "supernatural" beliefs in as straightforward a manner as possible:

I want my worldview to provide a sense of orientation, and to that end I take a generous view of the nature of reality, which is to say, I want to hold a worldview that embraces everything, including regions of being that are presumed to exist without their nature being known.

I understand that reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions of faith and transcendence, and I know the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, it's a matter of faith of course, but for those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. Consequently, I have chosen a theistic worldview.

OK, now tell me what you believe, and then let's use the practice of Street Epistemology to examine our respective worldviews.
I'm not sure that the OP was addressing "worldviews", but specifically, examining one's belief in the supernatural.

If you are talking about one"s belief in the supernatural, then you are talking about metaphysics, and it is explicitly about worldviews.

P.S. Because you suggested that you might be interested in what I believe; I am an apatheist, i.e., whether god (or the supernatural) exists, or not, is irrelevant. If (and that's a big IF) goddidit then I'd be more interested to find out HOW goddidit, not just spend the rest of my life worshiping him/her/it. Like watching a stage magician, I'm impressed by the performance, but the far more important question is, how did he do it? A mystery is only a mystery while it remains uninvestigated.

I'm less interested in philosophical labels and more interested in what your approach to examining my beliefs might tell us about your own metaphysical presuppositions. What I"ve seen about this Street Epistemology is that it lacks consistency and congruence, which is to say it tends to apply a special case logic that only applies to other people"s beliefs, but a special case logic isn"t logic at all. It won"t be very convincing if the argument for your position is actually an argument against your position.

Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to a dialog that leads to better understanding.

It feels like this is going to be very interesting, I'm going out of town for the Special Olympics (I"m a Coach), may not be able to get back on the boards till Sunday evening, please excuse any delay in responding.

I'll tell you right now, I'm going to show you that my faith is based on science and a logical proof, and I suspect yours is not, like I said, I think this is going to get interesting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/8/2016 3:31:49 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/7/2016 2:30:40 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:52:15 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I'm in, but I expect you to non-confrontationally explain how you arrived at your beliefs too, and because you are representing that you are in some way qualified to "examine beliefs",
"qualified"? What qualifications do you think are necessary to examine beliefs?

As I said, minimally I think you need to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence".

Ok, so can I have your definition of faith, as you apparently don't agree with mine?

I expect you to understand the meaning of the words "faith" and "transcendence", you do, correct?.
Ok, this is my first point of contention. Your use of the word "faith". I have my understanding of the meaning of the word "faith". It may differ from your meaning. As such, there is no the meaning, until we can agree. In which case, it merely becomes our agreed meaning.

I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.

OK, and on what basis do you contend that one must have "sufficient evidence" to hold a belief? What is the evidence for your belief?

Which of my beliefs would you like me to provide the evidence for? If you are referring to my definition of faith then I will address that later starting with: A claim that "something" exists requires evidence.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a belief.

I would argue that your own beliefs are in fact, based on faith, and that it is how you arrived at your beliefs.

Please let me know which of my beliefs are based on faith so that I can stop believing in them.

That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.

That would be the same thing as saying my faith based beliefs are valid and yours are not.

Not so! I never mentioned the validity or otherwise of your beliefs. At the moment, I don't even know what your beliefs are. I'm simply saying that it follows from my definition of faith.

You are making a base assertion for evidentialism, perhaps you can provide some form of evidence for evidentialism, or at least a good logical explanation in support of it. I will contend that evidentialism self referentially negates itself, there is no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it.

I find it interesting that in order to refute evidentialism, the first thing you do is seek evidence for and against the concept.
If (as you say) there is no evidence to support it (and you appear to reject evidentialism), why are you asking for evidence?
The only inconsistency is that you reject evidentialism on the grounds that there is evidence that it is false, yet you are using evidence to reject the notion that evidence is the justification for making a claim.

The simple fact is, there is no evidence that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it, so according to your evidentialism's own postulate, it should not be believed. The evidence against it is that for the evidence itself to be justified, requires evidence, which would require evidence, and so on, it necessarily ends in an infinite regress fallacy. It is nothing but a faith based belief that says all faith-based beliefs are unjustified.

A claim that "something" exists, requires evidence. If there is no evidence available one can only conclude that the "something" doesn't exist or that there is insufficient evidence to assert that it does exist. There is no need to ask, "What is the evidence for the evidence?". The evidence for the claim simply needs to be analysed to confirm its authenticity, accuracy and replicability. If it can be shown that the evidence was fraudulent or modified or in error or logically flawed or self contradictory, then the evidence and the original claim can be dismissed.
A claim that "something" doesn't exist, requires no evidence. By 'no evidence', I mean that there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) available to indicate that the "something" does exist.

I will further contend that the majority, if not all, of your own beliefs are not justified, or justifiable based on the postulates of your evidentialism.

Fine, then as I said earlier, show me which of my beliefs are unjustified and I will stop believing in them.

OK, now I'll start with a statement of my "supernatural" beliefs in as straightforward a manner as possible:

I want my worldview to provide a sense of orientation, and to that end I take a generous view of the nature of reality, which is to say, I want to hold a worldview that embraces everything, including regions of being that are presumed to exist without their nature being known.

I understand that reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions of faith and transcendence, and I know the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, it's a matter of faith of course, but for those who choose it, it provides an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. Consequently, I have chosen a theistic worldview.

OK, now tell me what you believe, and then let's use the practice of Street Epistemology to examine our respective worldviews.
I'm not sure that the OP was addressing "worldviews", but specifically, examining one's belief in the supernatural.

If you are talking about one"s belief in the supernatural, then you are talking about metaphysics, and it is explicitly about worldviews.

I'm less interested in philosophical labels and more interested in what your approach to examining my beliefs might tell us about your own metaphysical presuppositions.

I don't know what your beliefs are, I don't even know how you define faith, so I'm unable to examine your beliefs.
What I"ve seen about this Street Epistemology is that it lacks consistency and congruence, which is to say it tends to apply a special case logic that only applies to other people"s beliefs, but a special case logic isn"t logic at all. It won"t be very convincing if the argument for your position is actually an argument against your position.

It feels like this is going to be very interesting, I'm going out of town for the Special Olympics (I"m a Coach), may not be able to get back on the boards till Sunday evening, please excuse any delay in responding.

No probs :) I hope you enjoy yourself.

I'll tell you right now, I'm going to show you that my faith is based on science and a logical proof, and I suspect yours is not, like I said, I think this is going to get interesting.

Hmm, does that mean you are going to provide evidence and reason to make your argument that evidence and reason are not the sole requirements for holding a belief?

What if I were to say to you, that from here on in, I will retract my definition of faith and the associated arguments and henceforth claim that I have faith that supernatural entities do not exist? The justification and basis for my claim is that I don't believe in such entities. Furthermore, I will reject evidentialism and will place no significance to any supplied evidence (for or against) because any such evidence ultimately reverts to an infinite regress fallacy. Also, you have yet to meet your burden of proof to establish that supernatural entities do exist, so I am further justified in rejecting your claim.

[Slightly edited to accommodate character count. Please let me know if you object to anything I've deleted.]
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 11:47:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't understand OP.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:24:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/8/2016 3:31:49 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/7/2016 2:30:40 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:52:15 AM, Sidewalker wrote:


Ok, so can I have your definition of faith, as you apparently don't agree with mine?
I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to :hold such a belief.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a :belief. That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.


As the terms are generally used, 'faith' is or can be the basis for a belief.
I would agree with how you define 'faith' (something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.)
Faith is a replacement for evidence. It serves the same purpose. It definitely is the basis for beliefs, in faith based belief systems.
In science based belief systems, it is not acceptable as a valid basis for beliefs, but would still be recognized as the basis for beliefs.
Christians do not accept the Quran as a basis for beliefs, but they recognize that Muslims do.

All belief systems are based on faith.
Your belief system is based on faith.
If the term 'belief system' offends you, think of it as 'worldview'.

A Science based belief system, determines by some method, that for beliefs to be valid, they must have scientific evidence to support them.
Why would one believe this?
Because they believe that Science - as it exists today - has the potential to explain all things, in a naturalistic way. That is, only natural things exist, whether as substance, or some process of physical substances, and the Scientific Method as it exists today will reveal these things (although it [SM] might need some slight modifications).
Why do they believe that only Scientific answers to questions are valid?
Science tells them so.
Keep in mind, that many very learned and respected Scientists have a faith based belief system, so for them, Science does not convince them that it can provide all the answers.

Accepting Science as the final authority on everything is fallacious reasoning, and evidence that is fallacious is questionable, and if accepted, is accepted on faith, not solid, valid, scientific evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.
Any one little piece is questionable, fallacious evidence, a conjecture. At some point the mountain of circumstantial evidence raises the conclusion from fallacious, to Scientific fact.
If, because of your belief system, you do not accept the validity of ToE, you will view it as based on faith. It is only because the Scientific community accepts ToE as scientific fact, that it is not viewed as fallacious, and this is, in itself, an appeal to authority (fallacious).

Those who have a Scientific based belief system probably believe that the evidence for their position is so great that it raises it to the level of acceptability beyond faith.
It becomes Scientific fact, not unlike ToE.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.


A tad prolix, but I get the gist. You seem to think circumstantial evidence is fallacious - I am not sure everyone would agree. You also seem to think all the evidence for evolution is circumstantial (and hence fallacious?) - I am not sure everyone would agree.
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:24:43 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM, Emgaol wrote:

Ok, so can I have your definition of faith, as you apparently don't agree with mine?
I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to :hold such a belief.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a :belief. That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.


As the terms are generally used, 'faith' is or can be the basis for a belief.
So, the basis for one's belief is that one has a belief?

I would agree with how you define 'faith' (something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.)
Actually, my definition of faith is: "a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief". I want to emphasise that "faith" is a "belief" and is unjustifiable.

Faith is a replacement for evidence. It serves the same purpose.
Faith is subjective, evidence is not.
Evidence is objective, observable, replicable, measurable and falsifiable. Faith is not, and thus cannot serve the same purpose.

It definitely is the basis for beliefs, in faith based belief systems.
Then in faith based systems, the justification for belief, is that one has belief.

In science based belief systems, it is not acceptable as a valid basis for beliefs, but would still be recognized as the basis for beliefs.
What is a science based belief system?

Christians do not accept the Quran as a basis for beliefs, but they recognize that Muslims do.
Again, this is evidence that faith is subjective whilst evidence is not.

All belief systems are based on faith.
Your belief system is based on faith.
As I said before, please show me which of my beliefs are based on faith and I will stop believing in them.

If the term 'belief system' offends you, think of it as 'worldview'
A worldview is subjective, we each have some mental model of the world as we perceive it to be. There are as many different world views as there are people.

A Science based belief system, determines by some method, that for beliefs to be valid, they must have scientific evidence to support them.
Other than in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, one's beliefs are irrelevent to science. It is the evidence which is tested for it's validity, not one's beliefs.

Why would one believe this?
Because they believe that Science - as it exists today - has the potential to explain all things, in a naturalistic way. That is, only natural things exist, whether as substance, or some process of physical substances, and the Scientific Method as it exists today will reveal these things (although it [SM] might need some slight modifications).
Other than the scientific method, there are no viable alternatives to the investigation of the natural world.
If there was something to investigate then science will rigorously investigate it.

Why do they believe that only Scientific answers to questions are valid?
Science tells them so.
No, the evidence leads them to a conclusion.

Keep in mind, that many very learned and respected Scientists have a faith based belief system, so for them, Science does not convince them that it can provide all the answers.
I'm not concerned with a scientist's beliefs, only the data, the evidence and their reasoning to draw their conclusions.
The beauty of science is not that it provides answers but that those answers raise even more questions, which in turn, requires more research. An unending search for understanding.

Accepting Science as the final authority on everything is fallacious reasoning, and evidence that is fallacious is questionable, and if accepted, is accepted on faith, not solid, valid, scientific evidence.
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence".

Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.
Any one little piece is questionable, fallacious evidence, a conjecture. At some point the mountain of circumstantial evidence raises the conclusion from fallacious, to Scientific fact.
If, because of your belief system, you do not accept the validity of ToE, you will view it as based on faith. It is only because the Scientific community accepts ToE as scientific fact, that it is not viewed as fallacious, and this is, in itself, an appeal to authority (fallacious).
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence". ToE is not based on circumstantial evidence. If you have evidence that the ToE is not valid then please submit that evidence to the relevant scientists.
No alternative explanation even comes close.


Those who have a Scientific based belief system probably believe that the evidence for their position is so great that it raises it to the level of acceptability beyond faith.
It becomes Scientific fact, not unlike ToE.
In science, it matters not what we believe, unless we have sufficient evidence to support our claim then our claim is rejected.

Science does not make absolute statements. All current scientific theories and laws are provisional, tentative and in time, can, and may well be altered. They are, and will always be, falsifiable. Unlike belief based belief systems we have an evidence based scientific system (called, the scientific method).
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:50:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:47:55 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.


A tad prolix, but I get the gist. You seem to think circumstantial evidence is fallacious - I am not sure everyone would agree. You also seem to think all the evidence for evolution is circumstantial (and hence fallacious?) - I am not sure everyone would agree.
I find that someone, somewhere, will disagree, about anything and therefore everything.

It would be helpful if you gave an example of non-fallacious circumstantial evidence, and an example of evidence for evolution that is, by itself, convincing evidence, and not fallacious.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:19:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:43:23 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:24:43 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM, Emgaol wrote:

Ok, so can I have your definition of faith, as you apparently don't agree with mine?
I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to :hold such a belief.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a :belief. That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.


As the terms are generally used, 'faith' is or can be the basis for a belief.
So, the basis for one's belief is that one has a belief?

I would agree with how you define 'faith' (something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.)
Actually, my definition of faith is: "a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief". I want to emphasise that "faith" is a "belief" and is unjustifiable.

Faith is a replacement for evidence. It serves the same purpose.
Faith is subjective, evidence is not.
Evidence is objective, observable, replicable, measurable and falsifiable. Faith is not, and thus cannot serve the same purpose.

It definitely is the basis for beliefs, in faith based belief systems.
Then in faith based systems, the justification for belief, is that one has belief.

In science based belief systems, it is not acceptable as a valid basis for beliefs, but would still be recognized as the basis for beliefs.
What is a science based belief system?

Christians do not accept the Quran as a basis for beliefs, but they recognize that Muslims do.
Again, this is evidence that faith is subjective whilst evidence is not.

All belief systems are based on faith.
Your belief system is based on faith.
As I said before, please show me which of my beliefs are based on faith and I will stop believing in them.

If the term 'belief system' offends you, think of it as 'worldview'
A worldview is subjective, we each have some mental model of the world as we perceive it to be. There are as many different world views as there are people.

A Science based belief system, determines by some method, that for beliefs to be valid, they must have scientific evidence to support them.
Other than in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, one's beliefs are irrelevent to science. It is the evidence which is tested for it's validity, not one's beliefs.

Why would one believe this?
Because they believe that Science - as it exists today - has the potential to explain all things, in a naturalistic way. That is, only natural things exist, whether as substance, or some process of physical substances, and the Scientific Method as it exists today will reveal these things (although it [SM] might need some slight modifications).
Other than the scientific method, there are no viable alternatives to the investigation of the natural world.
If there was something to investigate then science will rigorously investigate it.

Why do they believe that only Scientific answers to questions are valid?
Science tells them so.
No, the evidence leads them to a conclusion.

Keep in mind, that many very learned and respected Scientists have a faith based belief system, so for them, Science does not convince them that it can provide all the answers.
I'm not concerned with a scientist's beliefs, only the data, the evidence and their reasoning to draw their conclusions.
The beauty of science is not that it provides answers but that those answers raise even more questions, which in turn, requires more research. An unending search for understanding.

Accepting Science as the final authority on everything is fallacious reasoning, and evidence that is fallacious is questionable, and if accepted, is accepted on faith, not solid, valid, scientific evidence.
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence".

Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.
Any one little piece is questionable, fallacious evidence, a conjecture. At some point the mountain of circumstantial evidence raises the conclusion from fallacious, to Scientific fact.
If, because of your belief system, you do not accept the validity of ToE, you will view it as based on faith. It is only because the Scientific community accepts ToE as scientific fact, that it is not viewed as fallacious, and this is, in itself, an appeal to authority (fallacious).
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence". ToE is not based on circumstantial evidence. If you have evidence that the ToE is not valid then please submit that evidence to the relevant scientists.
No alternative explanation even comes close.


Those who have a Scientific based belief system probably believe that the evidence for their position is so great that it raises it to the level of acceptability beyond faith.
It becomes Scientific fact, not unlike ToE.
In science, it matters not what we believe, unless we have sufficient evidence to support our claim then our claim is rejected.

Science does not make absolute statements. All current scientific theories and laws are provisional, tentative and in time, can, and may well be altered. They are, and will always be, falsifiable. Unlike belief based belief systems we have an evidence based scientific system (called, the scientific method).

Faith is not a belief itself. That is not what is meant, as the term is used in philosophy.
It is reason or justification for a belief.
We could say acceptance of faith is a belief, but that is a different thing.

Supernatural things are, by definition, beyond the understanding of Science.
How is it you believe Science can prove or disprove supernatural things?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:20:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:36:18 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Let me suggest "The fossil record".

Fallacy of single cause.
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 1:29:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 11:19:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:43:23 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:24:43 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM, Emgaol wrote:

Ok, so can I have your definition of faith, as you apparently don't agree with mine?
I define faith as a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to :hold such a belief.

So, I would argue that faith cannot be the basis for, nor how one has arrived at, a :belief. That would be the same as saying; the basis for my belief is that I have belief.


As the terms are generally used, 'faith' is or can be the basis for a belief.
So, the basis for one's belief is that one has a belief?

I would agree with how you define 'faith' (something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief.)
Actually, my definition of faith is: "a belief in something for which there is insufficient, or no evidence to hold such a belief". I want to emphasise that "faith" is a "belief" and is unjustifiable.

Faith is a replacement for evidence. It serves the same purpose.
Faith is subjective, evidence is not.
Evidence is objective, observable, replicable, measurable and falsifiable. Faith is not, and thus cannot serve the same purpose.

It definitely is the basis for beliefs, in faith based belief systems.
Then in faith based systems, the justification for belief, is that one has belief.

In science based belief systems, it is not acceptable as a valid basis for beliefs, but would still be recognized as the basis for beliefs.
What is a science based belief system?

Christians do not accept the Quran as a basis for beliefs, but they recognize that Muslims do.
Again, this is evidence that faith is subjective whilst evidence is not.

All belief systems are based on faith.
Your belief system is based on faith.
As I said before, please show me which of my beliefs are based on faith and I will stop believing in them.

If the term 'belief system' offends you, think of it as 'worldview'
A worldview is subjective, we each have some mental model of the world as we perceive it to be. There are as many different world views as there are people.

A Science based belief system, determines by some method, that for beliefs to be valid, they must have scientific evidence to support them.
Other than in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, one's beliefs are irrelevent to science. It is the evidence which is tested for it's validity, not one's beliefs.

Why would one believe this?
Because they believe that Science - as it exists today - has the potential to explain all things, in a naturalistic way. That is, only natural things exist, whether as substance, or some process of physical substances, and the Scientific Method as it exists today will reveal these things (although it [SM] might need some slight modifications).
Other than the scientific method, there are no viable alternatives to the investigation of the natural world.
If there was something to investigate then science will rigorously investigate it.

Why do they believe that only Scientific answers to questions are valid?
Science tells them so.
No, the evidence leads them to a conclusion.

Keep in mind, that many very learned and respected Scientists have a faith based belief system, so for them, Science does not convince them that it can provide all the answers.
I'm not concerned with a scientist's beliefs, only the data, the evidence and their reasoning to draw their conclusions.
The beauty of science is not that it provides answers but that those answers raise even more questions, which in turn, requires more research. An unending search for understanding.

Accepting Science as the final authority on everything is fallacious reasoning, and evidence that is fallacious is questionable, and if accepted, is accepted on faith, not solid, valid, scientific evidence.
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence".

Circumstantial evidence is fallacious. Sometimes there is so much circumstantial evidence for something, and so little evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) against it, that it is taken as 'Scientific fact'.
Each little circumstantial piece of evidence is fallacious and not convincing.
Viewed in their entirety, as a whole unifying theory, they are accepted as Scientific fact.
It is this way with Evolution.
Any one little piece is questionable, fallacious evidence, a conjecture. At some point the mountain of circumstantial evidence raises the conclusion from fallacious, to Scientific fact.
If, because of your belief system, you do not accept the validity of ToE, you will view it as based on faith. It is only because the Scientific community accepts ToE as scientific fact, that it is not viewed as fallacious, and this is, in itself, an appeal to authority (fallacious).
In science, if evidence is fallacious (erroneous) or questionable then it is not accepted. No conclusions can be drawn from such "evidence". ToE is not based on circumstantial evidence. If you have evidence that the ToE is not valid then please submit that evidence to the relevant scientists.
No alternative explanation even comes close.


Those who have a Scientific based belief system probably believe that the evidence for their position is so great that it raises it to the level of acceptability beyond faith.
It becomes Scientific fact, not unlike ToE.
In science, it matters not what we believe, unless we have sufficient evidence to support our claim then our claim is rejected.

Science does not make absolute statements. All current scientific theories and laws are provisional, tentative and in time, can, and may well be altered. They are, and will always be, falsifiable. Unlike belief based belief systems we have an evidence based scientific system (called, the scientific method).

Faith is not a belief itself. That is not what is meant, as the term is used in philosophy.
Please allow me to give evidence for my claim that faith is a belief.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
FAITH
1. strong belief or trust in someone or something
2. belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
3. a system of religious beliefs

Please provide your definition of faith, because you seem to disagree with mine.

It is reason or justification for a belief.
Was there anywhere in the above definitions which referred to reason or justification of a belief?

We could say acceptance of faith is a belief, but that is a different thing.
How is it different?
What then is rejection of faith? Would it not be disbelief?

Supernatural things are, by definition, beyond the understanding of Science.
Do you understand the supernatural? Do you know how it does what you claim it does? If you can't explain how then you don't understand the supernatural either.

How is it you believe Science can prove or disprove supernatural things?
Science can only investigate those things for which there is evidence. Show evidence of the supernatural and watch scientists jump at the opportunity to investigate the phenomenon.

Could you please answer my question that I asked in my previous reply to you?
What is a science based belief system?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:00:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 11:20:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:36:18 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Let me suggest "The fossil record".

Fallacy of single cause.

You said "It would be helpful if you gave an example of non-fallacious circumstantial evidence, and an example of evidence for evolution that is, by itself, convincing evidence, and not fallacious."

An example you asked for AN example and I gave you AN example and now you claim - incorrectly - that I committed a fallacy!

It would be more helpful if you pointed out why the fossil record is 'circumstantial' and hence 'fallacious' evidence for evolution.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 1:29:06 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:19:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:43:23 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:24:43 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/9/2016 7:41:39 AM, Emgaol wrote:



Faith is not a belief itself. That is not what is meant, as the term is used in philosophy.
Please allow me to give evidence for my claim that faith is a belief.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
FAITH
1. strong belief or trust in someone or something
2. belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
3. a system of religious beliefs

Please provide your definition of faith, because you seem to disagree with mine.


Oxford dicyionary
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Dictionary definitions are a last resort, when someone has no idea what is being discussed. With (improper) use of dictionaries nearly anything can be proven, or disproven.
Dictionary definitions are meant for lay use, the uninformed,
On a philosophy discussion board they are of minimal use.

Here are the thoughts of an author contributing to the Sanford Encyclopedia of Phiosophy:
"Faith is a broad term, appearing in locutions that express a range of different concepts. At its most general "faith" means much the same as "trust". This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the notion of religious faith"or, rather (and this qualification is important), the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith. Philosophical accounts are almost exclusively about theistic religious faith"faith in God"and they generally, though not exclusively, deal with faith as understood within the Christian branch of the Abrahamic traditions. But, although the theistic religious context settles what kind of faith is of interest, the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all. Arguably, it may be apt to speak of the faith of a humanist, or even an atheist, using the same general sense of "faith" as applies to the theist case.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

He discusses 11 models of faith, as used in religion.
One of them is 'faith as belief'.

He notes:
The rationality of faith on this model will rest on the rationality of the firmly held theological beliefs in which it consists. As Swinburne notes, if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge on a contemporary "justified true belief" fallibilist epistemology, even though they fall short of knowledge on Aquinas's own criteria, which require that what is known be "seen" (i.e., fully and directly comprehended) . In any case, the reasonableness of faith on this model of faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.

So we see that faith as belief can be a 'justified true belief'.
It can be religious knowledge.
I realize you would disagree, but I am showing how the term is used in philosophy.

It is reason or justification for a belief.
Was there anywhere in the above definitions which referred to reason or justification of a belief?

We could say acceptance of faith is a belief, but that is a different thing.
How is it different?
What then is rejection of faith? Would it not be disbelief?

Supernatural things are, by definition, beyond the understanding of Science.
Do you understand the supernatural? Do you know how it does what you claim it does? If you can't explain how then you don't understand the supernatural either.

How is it you believe Science can prove or disprove supernatural things?

Science can only investigate those things for which there is evidence. Show evidence of the supernatural and watch scientists jump at the opportunity to investigate the phenomenon.

So, Science can neither affirm nor deny supernatural events.
So how do you confirm or deny supernatural events. You have indicated you do not use science.

Could you please answer my question that I asked in my previous reply to you?
What is a science based belief system?

Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
From: Science as a belief system.

http://spaz.ca...

Also this, from Science 2.0, Join the Revelotion:
Science is used to build an evidence-based belief system, under the premise that the world is ultimately understandable through observation, experiment, and prediction.
Science, Faith, And Belief Systems
http://www.science20.com...

It is very difficult to make the argument that Science is a belief system, although some try.
However, all individuals have a belief system, and many of them are based on Science, so can be considered a science based belief system.

I have never heard the claim by any philosopher than an individual does not have to have a belief system.
It is your core beliefs, that guide you in decision making about life, truth, good, bad, up, down, etc.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 3:00:13 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:20:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:36:18 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Let me suggest "The fossil record".

Fallacy of single cause.

You said "It would be helpful if you gave an example of non-fallacious circumstantial evidence, and an example of evidence for evolution that is, by itself, convincing evidence, and not fallacious."

An example you asked for AN example and I gave you AN example and now you claim - incorrectly - that I committed a fallacy!

It would be more helpful if you pointed out why the fossil record is 'circumstantial' and hence 'fallacious' evidence for evolution.

I made no claim against you, only your evidence.
It is not convincing evidence for evolution because their existence may have nothing to do with evolution.
It is merely circumstantial.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 3:10:30 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:00:13 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:20:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:36:18 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Let me suggest "The fossil record".

Fallacy of single cause.

You said "It would be helpful if you gave an example of non-fallacious circumstantial evidence, and an example of evidence for evolution that is, by itself, convincing evidence, and not fallacious."

An example you asked for AN example and I gave you AN example and now you claim - incorrectly - that I committed a fallacy!

It would be more helpful if you pointed out why the fossil record is 'circumstantial' and hence 'fallacious' evidence for evolution.

I made no claim against you, only your evidence.
It is not convincing evidence for evolution because their existence may have nothing to do with evolution.
It is merely circumstantial.

You also said such evidence was fallacious.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 4:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 3:57:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:10:30 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:00:13 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:20:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:36:18 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Let me suggest "The fossil record".

Fallacy of single cause.

You said "It would be helpful if you gave an example of non-fallacious circumstantial evidence, and an example of evidence for evolution that is, by itself, convincing evidence, and not fallacious."

An example you asked for AN example and I gave you AN example and now you claim - incorrectly - that I committed a fallacy!

It would be more helpful if you pointed out why the fossil record is 'circumstantial' and hence 'fallacious' evidence for evolution.

I made no claim against you, only your evidence.
It is not convincing evidence for evolution because their existence may have nothing to do with evolution.
It is merely circumstantial.

You also said such evidence was fallacious.

Yes.
Perussi
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/6/2016 9:21:42 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Hmmmm, OK, this Street Epistemology approach certainly is non-confrontational.

Not confrontational but this thread will shurly soon go to hell.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 3:05:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 1:29:06 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:19:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Oxford dicyionary
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Dictionary definitions are a last resort, when someone has no idea what is being discussed. With (improper) use of dictionaries nearly anything can be proven, or disproven.
Dictionary definitions are meant for lay use, the uninformed,
On a philosophy discussion board they are of minimal use.
I gave you my evidence for claiming that faith is a belief to counter your claim that faith is not a belief itself.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything by asking you to give your definition of "faith". If I use the word "faith" and I mean something other than what you mean, then we are talking different languages. I simply asked what do you mean by "faith". Did you notice that neither your dictionary nor mine used my definition?

Here are the thoughts of an author contributing to the Sanford Encyclopedia of Phiosophy:
"Faith is a broad term, appearing in locutions that express a range of different concepts. At its most general "faith" means much the same as "trust". This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the notion of religious faith"or, rather (and this qualification is important), the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith. Philosophical accounts are almost exclusively about theistic religious faith"faith in God"and they generally, though not exclusively, deal with faith as understood within the Christian branch of the Abrahamic traditions. But, although the theistic religious context settles what kind of faith is of interest, the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all. Arguably, it may be apt to speak of the faith of a humanist, or even an atheist, using the same general sense of "faith" as applies to the theist case.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

He discusses 11 models of faith, as used in religion.
One of them is 'faith as belief'.

He notes:
The rationality of faith on this model will rest on the rationality of the firmly held theological beliefs in which it consists. As Swinburne notes, if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge on a contemporary "justified true belief" fallibilist epistemology, even though they fall short of knowledge on Aquinas's own criteria, which require that what is known be "seen" (i.e., fully and directly comprehended) . In any case, the reasonableness of faith on this model of faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.
"... if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge...".
The last sentence in this quote states that "... faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.".
Which means that there must be adequate evidence to justify the belief. It does not assert that faith alone is the justification for belief.

So we see that faith as belief can be a 'justified true belief'.
It can be religious knowledge.
I realize you would disagree, but I am showing how the term is used in philosophy.

It is reason or justification for a belief.
Was there anywhere in the above definitions which referred to reason or justification of a belief?

We could say acceptance of faith is a belief, but that is a different thing.
How is it different?
What then is rejection of faith? Would it not be disbelief?

Supernatural things are, by definition, beyond the understanding of Science.
Do you understand the supernatural? Do you know how it does what you claim it does? If you can't explain how then you don't understand the supernatural either.

How is it you believe Science can prove or disprove supernatural things?

Science can only investigate those things for which there is evidence. Show evidence of the supernatural and watch scientists jump at the opportunity to investigate the phenomenon.

So, Science can neither affirm nor deny supernatural events.
It can deny supernatural events because there has never been any evidence of supernatural events that science has verified. All supernatural claims that science has investigated were found to be unsubstantiated or fraudulent. If they had been verifiable then science would indeed have declared that the supernatural exists.

So how do you confirm or deny supernatural events. You have indicated you do not use science.

Could you please answer my question that I asked in my previous reply to you?
What is a science based belief system?

Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
From: Science as a belief system.

http://spaz.ca...
Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that the blog author asserts that there are 2 assumptions that must be taken solely on faith:
"1) There exists an external objective reality.". I would argue that there is evidence for asserting such a thing. Both you and I interact with objects and people which are clearly seperate entities from ourselves. The alternative to this "assumption" is solipsism, such that there is nothing other than my mind.
"2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible."

Again, there is evidence to assert the above. Yet again, the alternative is solipsism.
I also note that this author seems decidedly anti-religious, given statements like: "Religions are mental viruses. They attack their hosts minds, inserting their ideas." and, "They disable critical and skeptical thinking, and make a virtue of accepting things on blind faith." from his home page.

Also this, from Science 2.0, Join the Revelotion:
Science is used to build an evidence-based belief system, under the premise that the world is ultimately understandable through observation, experiment, and prediction.
Science, Faith, And Belief Systems
http://www.science20.com...
Another interesting quote from the blog: "One cannot introduce faith into an evidence-based system any more than one can demand evidence of a faith-based system.".

It is very difficult to make the argument that Science is a belief system, although some try.
I agree
However, all individuals have a belief system, and many of them are based on Science, so can be considered a science based belief system.
Thanks for answering my question. Although I believe that both blogs are trying to insert the word "belief" into Science, in reading what the rest of their articles have to say, in general I agree with their comments.
See, there are many things I believe, but in all cases, I need evidence to support (justify) that belief.

I have never heard the claim by any philosopher than an individual does not have to have a belief system.
It is your core beliefs, that guide you in decision making about life, truth, good, bad, up, down, etc.
I have never denied that I have beliefs, I'm simply saying that faith alone is not sufficient justification for holding a belief.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 11:14:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 4:12:52 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:57:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:

You also said such evidence was fallacious.

Yes.

So you assert the fossil record is fallacious evidence for evolution?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 8:58:24 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:05:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 1:29:06 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 11:19:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I gave you my evidence for claiming that faith is a belief to counter your claim that faith is not a belief itself.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything by asking you to give your definition of "faith". If I use the word "faith" and I mean something other than what you mean, then we are talking different languages. I simply asked what do you mean by "faith". Did you notice that neither your dictionary nor mine used my definition?

I provide the objective usage of Philosophy, you want to use the subject usage of an evidence based belief system.
You use of language is not acceptable in an objective manner.
Philosophy uses the terms so that they apply to evidence based belief system, as well as faith based belief systems. It lets each side work out the detail for themselves.
Your comments to the OP demonstrated your lack of understanding of the objective meaning of the terms under discussion.

"... if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge...".
The last sentence in this quote states that "... faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.".
Which means that there must be adequate evidence to justify the belief. It does not assert that faith alone is the justification for belief.

And you do not get to decide when the evidence is adequate.
The key point is "faith" can be a justified true belief (aka knowledge).
An evidence based belief system, that denies the validity of faith, does not get to decide when faith become knowledge. It is that simple.

So we see that faith as belief can be a 'justified true belief'.
It can be religious knowledge.
I realize you would disagree, but I am showing how the term is used in philosophy.

It is reason or justification for a belief.
Was there anywhere in the above definitions which referred to reason or justification of a belief?

We could say acceptance of faith is a belief, but that is a different thing.
How is it different?
What then is rejection of faith? Would it not be disbelief?

Supernatural things are, by definition, beyond the understanding of Science.
Do you understand the supernatural? Do you know how it does what you claim it does? If you can't explain how then you don't understand the supernatural either.

How is it you believe Science can prove or disprove supernatural things?

Science can only investigate those things for which there is evidence. Show evidence of the supernatural and watch scientists jump at the opportunity to investigate the phenomenon.

So, Science can neither affirm nor deny supernatural events.
It can deny supernatural events because there has never been any evidence of supernatural events that science has verified. All supernatural claims that science has investigated were found to be unsubstantiated or fraudulent. If they had been verifiable then science would indeed have declared that the supernatural exists.

The theory of the Supernatural says it is beyond the understanding of Science.
Guess what, its prediction has been verified as true.
When a theory makes a prediction and it comes true, that is evidence for it, not against it.

So how do you confirm or deny supernatural events. You have indicated you do not use science.

Could you please answer my question that I asked in my previous reply to you?
What is a science based belief system?

Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
From: Science as a belief system.

http://spaz.ca...
Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that the blog author asserts that there are 2 assumptions that must be taken solely on faith:
"1) There exists an external objective reality.". I would argue that there is evidence for asserting such a thing. Both you and I interact with objects and people which are clearly seperate entities from ourselves. The alternative to this "assumption" is solipsism, such that there is nothing other than my mind.

False dilemma.
Maybe I am part of reality, not separate from it.
Not my mind, all of me, anything you care to identify as part of me, and maybe some things you do not believe are part of me.
Your argument fails.

"2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible."

Again, there is evidence to assert the above. Yet again, the alternative is solipsism.
I also note that this author seems decidedly anti-religious, given statements like: "Religions are mental viruses. They attack their hosts minds, inserting their ideas." and, "They disable critical and skeptical thinking, and make a virtue of accepting things on blind faith." from his home page.

This argument fails as well, as another false dilemma.
What is this structure of the universe if there are multiverses, and all possible events exist at this very moment (rhetorical).
There have been many theories about the universe since the beginning of recorded history, and before. All of them seemed to work, until a better one came along and blew a "sure thing" out of the water.
That is a bedrock of Science. "We will accept this theory until a better one comes along."

It should not surprise you that many philosophers are Atheists, even the ones who say you have a belief system standing on a pillar of faith.

Another interesting quote from the blog: "One cannot introduce faith into an evidence-based system any more than one can demand evidence of a faith-based system.".

This does not change the fact that the same author says science based belief systems are dependent on faith, at their very core.

Thanks for answering my question. Although I believe that both blogs are trying to insert the word "belief" into Science, in reading what the rest of their articles have to say, in general I agree with their comments.
See, there are many things I believe, but in all cases, I need evidence to support (justify) that belief.

And the reason for this position, is a belief system that has accepted certain points on faith.
We should not be surprised to know that you can support your position with evidence.
Even those with faith based belief systems believe they have evidence for their assumptions. Really, just ask them.

I have never heard the claim by any philosopher than an individual does not have to have a belief system.
It is your core beliefs, that guide you in decision making about life, truth, good, bad, up, down, etc.
I have never denied that I have beliefs, I'm simply saying that faith alone is not sufficient justification for holding a belief.

It seems you are still in denial.
Even concerning the basis of your core beliefs that support your belief system.
You do not get to define terms of philosophy for faith based belief systems.
When faith is recognized as a justified true belief, you would disagree, always, because of your subjective use of terms like "evidence".
Science, and science based belief systems do not have any authority over the use of words like "faith", and your arguments against them are hollow.
Particularly in the philosophy or religion forums.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:55:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 11:14:12 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/18/2016 4:12:52 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:57:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:

You also said such evidence was fallacious.

Yes.

So you assert the fossil record is fallacious evidence for evolution?

You know, how many time have I indicated such?

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Add this post to the growing list.
The fossil record is such a large body of work, you may be able to find parts of it that are not fallacious, but I will refer to the many key elements that clearly are fallacious.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I am unaware of any fallacious fossil evidence. I might concede 'inconclusive', but fallacious?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 2:04:08 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I am unaware of any fallacious fossil evidence. I might concede 'inconclusive', but fallacious?

If evidence is inconclusive, and yet a conclusion is stated, is that not the fallacy of a hasty conclusion?
Emgaol
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 3:28:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:44:11 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 8:58:24 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:05:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I gave you my evidence for claiming that faith is a belief to counter your claim that faith is not a belief itself.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything by asking you to give your definition of "faith". If I use the word "faith" and I mean something other than what you mean, then we are talking different languages. I simply asked what do you mean by "faith". Did you notice that neither your dictionary nor mine used my definition?

I provide the objective usage of Philosophy, you want to use the subject usage of an evidence based belief system.
You use of language is not acceptable in an objective manner.
Philosophy uses the terms so that they apply to evidence based belief system, as well as faith based belief systems. It lets each side work out the detail for themselves.
Your comments to the OP demonstrated your lack of understanding of the objective meaning of the terms under discussion.
Ok, I get it, you can't define faith.

"... if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge...".
The last sentence in this quote states that "... faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.".
Which means that there must be adequate evidence to justify the belief. It does not assert that faith alone is the justification for belief.

And you do not get to decide when the evidence is adequate.
I never said I do get to decide. That quote was from your source. If you disagree with it I suggest you take it up with the author. I just agree with what he said.

The key point is "faith" can be a justified true belief (aka knowledge).
An evidence based belief system, that denies the validity of faith, does not get to decide when faith become knowledge. It is that simple.

So, Science can neither affirm nor deny supernatural events.
It can deny supernatural events because there has never been any evidence of supernatural events that science has verified. All supernatural claims that science has investigated were found to be unsubstantiated or fraudulent. If they had been verifiable then science would indeed have declared that the supernatural exists.

The theory of the Supernatural says it is beyond the understanding of Science.
Ok, so you've drawn a line in the sand and declared that beyond this point, science, logic and evidence shall not pass. Beyond this point, nothing shall be defined.

Guess what, its prediction has been verified as true.
When a theory makes a prediction and it comes true, that is evidence for it, not against it.

What is a science based belief system?
Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
From: Science as a belief system.

http://spaz.ca...
Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that the blog author asserts that there are 2 assumptions that must be taken solely on faith:
"1) There exists an external objective reality.". I would argue that there is evidence for asserting such a thing. Both you and I interact with objects and people which are clearly seperate entities from ourselves. The alternative to this "assumption" is solipsism, such that there is nothing other than my mind.

False dilemma.
Maybe I am part of reality, not separate from it.
Not my mind, all of me, anything you care to identify as part of me, and maybe some things you do not believe are part of me.
Your argument fails.

"2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible."

Again, there is evidence to assert the above. Yet again, the alternative is solipsism.
I also note that this author seems decidedly anti-religious, given statements like: "Religions are mental viruses. They attack their hosts minds, inserting their ideas." and, "They disable critical and skeptical thinking, and make a virtue of accepting things on blind faith." from his home page.

This argument fails as well, as another false dilemma.
What is this structure of the universe if there are multiverses, and all possible events exist at this very moment (rhetorical).
There have been many theories about the universe since the beginning of recorded history, and before. All of them seemed to work, until a better one came along and blew a "sure thing" out of the water.
That is a bedrock of Science. "We will accept this theory until a better one comes along."
So you give sources which you claim support your argument and then refute their arguments.

We would not surprise you that many philosophers are Atheists, even the ones who say you have a belief system standing on a pillar of faith.
I've said before, I'm not concerned with someone's beliefs, only their evidence and reasoning in drawing their conclusions.

Another interesting quote from the blog: "One cannot introduce faith into an evidence-based system any more than one can demand evidence of a faith-based system.".

This does not change the fact that the same author says science based belief systems are dependent on faith, at their very core.
So your quoted source makes contradictory statements. Maybe you should choose your sources more diligently.

Thanks for answering my question. Although I believe that both blogs are trying to insert the word "belief" into Science, in reading what the rest of their articles have to say, in general I agree with their comments.
See, there are many things I believe, but in all cases, I need evidence to support (justify) that belief.

And the reason for this position, is a belief system that has accepted certain points on faith.
We should not be surprised to know that you can support your position with evidence.
Even those with faith based belief systems believe they have evidence for their assumptions. Really, just ask them.
Oh good, they are starting to recognise the value of evidence.

I have never heard the claim by any philosopher than an individual does not have to have a belief system.
It is your core beliefs, that guide you in decision making about life, truth, good, bad, up, down, etc.
I have never denied that I have beliefs, I'm simply saying that faith alone is not sufficient justification for holding a belief.

It seems you are still in denial.
When I say that I have never denied that I have beliefs, you say I'm still in denial.

Even concerning the basis of your core beliefs that support your belief system.
You do not get to define terms of philosophy for faith based belief systems.
I'm sorry I asked for your definition of faith so that I could understand your position. How rude of me to ask.

When faith is recognized as a justified true belief, you would disagree, always, because of your subjective use of terms like "evidence".
Previously I said: "Evidence is objective, observable, replicable, measurable and falsifiable.". Now you say I'm using it subjectively.
It seems as though if I said something was hot, you'd say that I said it was cold.

Science, and science based belief systems do not have any authority over the use of words like "faith", and your arguments against them are hollow.
Particularly in the philosophy or religion forums.
I ask questions and you refuse to answer. I make statements and you say I mean the opposite of what I said.
There doesn't seem to be anything more I can learn about your beliefs.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 11:29:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 3:28:35 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:44:11 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/18/2016 8:58:24 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/18/2016 3:05:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:


I provide the objective usage of Philosophy, you want to use the subject usage of an evidence based belief system.
You use of language is not acceptable in an objective manner.
Philosophy uses the terms so that they apply to evidence based belief system, as well as faith based belief systems. It lets each side work out the detail for themselves.
Your comments to the OP demonstrated your lack of understanding of the objective meaning of the terms under discussion.
Ok, I get it, you can't define faith.

"... if such beliefs are founded on evidence that renders their truth sufficiently more probable than not, then the beliefs concerned may amount to knowledge...".
The last sentence in this quote states that "... faith as belief depends on the beliefs concerned being adequately evidentially justified.".
Which means that there must be adequate evidence to justify the belief. It does not assert that faith alone is the justification for belief.

And you do not get to decide when the evidence is adequate.
I never said I do get to decide. That quote was from your source. If you disagree with it I suggest you take it up with the author. I just agree with what he said.

The key point is "faith" can be a justified true belief (aka knowledge).
An evidence based belief system, that denies the validity of faith, does not get to decide when faith become knowledge. It is that simple.

So, Science can neither affirm nor deny supernatural events.
It can deny supernatural events because there has never been any evidence of supernatural events that science has verified. All supernatural claims that science has investigated were found to be unsubstantiated or fraudulent. If they had been verifiable then science would indeed have declared that the supernatural exists.

The theory of the Supernatural says it is beyond the understanding of Science.
Ok, so you've drawn a line in the sand and declared that beyond this point, science, logic and evidence shall not pass. Beyond this point, nothing shall be defined.

Guess what, its prediction has been verified as true.
When a theory makes a prediction and it comes true, that is evidence for it, not against it.

What is a science based belief system?
Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
From: Science as a belief system.

http://spaz.ca...
Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that the blog author asserts that there are 2 assumptions that must be taken solely on faith:
"1) There exists an external objective reality.". I would argue that there is evidence for asserting such a thing. Both you and I interact with objects and people which are clearly seperate entities from ourselves. The alternative to this "assumption" is solipsism, such that there is nothing other than my mind.

False dilemma.
Maybe I am part of reality, not separate from it.
Not my mind, all of me, anything you care to identify as part of me, and maybe some things you do not believe are part of me.
Your argument fails.

"2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible."

Again, there is evidence to assert the above. Yet again, the alternative is solipsism.
I also note that this author seems decidedly anti-religious, given statements like: "Religions are mental viruses. They attack their hosts minds, inserting their ideas." and, "They disable critical and skeptical thinking, and make a virtue of accepting things on blind faith." from his home page.

This argument fails as well, as another false dilemma.
What is this structure of the universe if there are multiverses, and all possible events exist at this very moment (rhetorical).
There have been many theories about the universe since the beginning of recorded history, and before. All of them seemed to work, until a better one came along and blew a "sure thing" out of the water.
That is a bedrock of Science. "We will accept this theory until a better one comes along."
So you give sources which you claim support your argument and then refute their arguments.

We would not surprise you that many philosophers are Atheists, even the ones who say you have a belief system standing on a pillar of faith.
I've said before, I'm not concerned with someone's beliefs, only their evidence and reasoning in drawing their conclusions.

Another interesting quote from the blog: "One cannot introduce faith into an evidence-based system any more than one can demand evidence of a faith-based system.".

This does not change the fact that the same author says science based belief systems are dependent on faith, at their very core.
So your quoted source makes contradictory statements. Maybe you should choose your sources more diligently.

Thanks for answering my question. Although I believe that both blogs are trying to insert the word "belief" into Science, in reading what the rest of their articles have to say, in general I agree with their comments.
See, there are many things I believe, but in all cases, I need evidence to support (justify) that belief.

And the reason for this position, is a belief system that has accepted certain points on faith.
We should not be surprised to know that you can support your position with evidence.
Even those with faith based belief systems believe they have evidence for their assumptions. Really, just ask them.
Oh good, they are starting to recognise the value of evidence.

I have never heard the claim by any philosopher than an individual does not have to have a belief system.
It is your core beliefs, that guide you in decision making about life, truth, good, bad, up, down, etc.
I have never denied that I have beliefs, I'm simply saying that faith alone is not sufficient justification for holding a belief.

It seems you are still in denial.
When I say that I have never denied that I have beliefs, you say I'm still in denial.

Even concerning the basis of your core beliefs that support your belief system.
You do not get to define terms of philosophy for faith based belief systems.
I'm sorry I asked for your definition of faith so that I could understand your position. How rude of me to ask.

When faith is recognized as a justified true belief, you would disagree, always, because of your subjective use of terms like "evidence".
Previously I said: "Evidence is objective, observable, replicable, measurable and falsifiable.". Now you say I'm using it subjectively.
It seems as though if I said something was hot, you'd say that I said it was cold.

Science, and science based belief systems do not have any authority over the use of words like "faith", and your arguments against them are hollow.
Particularly in the philosophy or religion forums.
I ask questions and you refuse to answer. I make statements and you say I mean the opposite of what I said.
There doesn't seem to be anything more I can learn about your beliefs.

Well, if that is your belief...........