Is science a belief?

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

@Prismatic567

@phyllo

Where did those numbers come from?

As mentioned they are relative estimates based on what is stated in the text.

In other words, you fabricated the numbers.

Posts which contain numbers are impressive, because there is the suggestion that objective research was done to get the numbers.

I don’t like your use of ‘fabricate’ presumably in the fake/deceptive sense.
If you read that section in Kant’s CPR you will understand what I meant by those numbers and not think there is an objective research to get the numbers.

Note I said those numbers are relative estimates, i.e. to give a comparative numerical ‘picture’ of the continuum.
If I say your head is full of hair, one can estimate and guess you have 80-95% on the surface area of the top of your head is covered thickly with hairs.
If I say you are almost bald, then you are likely to have hairs on 10% to 40% of the surface on top of your head.
These are rough description [not exact] with numbers and I am sure you can get some reasonable sense of what I meant by the above.

Principle of Charity???

[phyllo]

If I say your head is full of hair, one can estimate and guess you have 80-95% on the surface area of the top of your head is covered thickly with hairs.
If I say you are almost bald, then you are likely to have hairs on 10% to 40% of the surface on top of your head.
These are rough description [not exact] with numbers and I am sure you can get some reasonable sense of what I meant by the above.

There you go with fake numbers, again.

Principle of Charity???

Refer to Kant’s CPR, or his USB or DVD all you want. Just don’t make up numbers. What could be fairer than that?

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

If I say your head is full of hair, one can estimate and guess you have 80-95% on the surface area of the top of your head is covered thickly with hairs.
If I say you are almost bald, then you are likely to have hairs on 10% to 40% of the surface on top of your head.
These are rough description [not exact] with numbers and I am sure you can get some reasonable sense of what I meant by the above.

There you go with fake numbers, again.

Principle of Charity???

Refer to Kant’s CPR, or his USB or DVD all you want. Just don’t make up numbers. What could be fairer than that?

I will continue to use numbers [as qualified] where they are relevant.
If you don’t like it … there is the ‘ignore’ option.

[Arminius]

@Artimas

Religion stories always change.

Which religions do you mean? You use the word “always” pretty generously, don’t you?

Christianity as a religion has been existing for about 2000 years.

@Artimas

How do you think we have 1,000’s of different versions with similarities.

Which different versions do you mean? Christianity (for example) has been existing for about 2000 years.

@Artimas

Belief is buying into something without having to know. It’s the acceptance of something, regardless of evidence or knowing.

Faith is trust. Belief needs faith, otherwise you will always be second guessing what you believe in.

So, according to your statement, belief is the deeper faith.

[Artimas]

@Arminius

@Artimas

Religion stories always change.

Which religions do you mean? You use the word “always” pretty generously, don’t you?

Christianity as a religion has been existing for about 2000 years.

@Artimas

How do you think we have 1,000’s of different versions with similarities.

Which different versions do you mean? Christianity (for example) has been existing for about 2000 years.

@Artimas

Belief is buying into something without having to know. It’s the acceptance of something, regardless of evidence or knowing.

Faith is trust. Belief needs faith, otherwise you will always be second guessing what you believe in.

So, according to your statement, belief is the deeper faith.

Christianity as a religion copied ideas and traditions from other religions, just a different story. There are tons of different gods and religions.

Belief and faith are nearly the same thing. Both usually blind too.

Christmas? Easter? ring a bell?

[Arminius]

@Artimas

Christianity as a religion copied ideas and traditions from other religions, just a different story. There are tons of different gods and religions.

Belief and faith are nearly the same thing. Both usually blind too.

Christmas? Easter? ring a bell?

Everyone knows, yes, but that is no answer to my question. I did not ask for the origins and the copies, but for the duration of a religion, regardless whether this religion made some compromises with the heathendom or not, regardless whether this religion got several denominations, regardless whether “belief” and “faith” are blind or not. Christianity, let’s say since its early days when it merged with many aspects of the German religion, has been being a pretty much consistent, coherent, uniform religion, although a bit a mixed, a syncretistic one - but that does not matter.

I just wanted you to explain the difference between “belief” and “faith” to somebody whose first language is not English and which “different versions with similarities” you could mean on the evidence of e.g. Christianity as a an old and consistent, coherent, uniform religion.

[phyllo]

Prismatic wrote:
I will continue to use numbers [as qualified] where they are relevant.
If you don’t like it … there is the ‘ignore’ option.

I’m not concerned for myself - I recognize bullshit numbers when I see them. I’m more worried that the philosopher types, who participate in this forum, may believe that those meaningless numbers are significant.

And don’t take this personally. I usually complain when I see statistics being misused and/or when numbers are posted without proper references.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

Prismatic wrote:
I will continue to use numbers [as qualified] where they are relevant.
If you don’t like it … there is the ‘ignore’ option.

I’m not concerned for myself - I recognize bullshit numbers when I see them. I’m more worried that the philosopher types, who participate in this forum, may believe that those meaningless numbers are significant.

And don’t take this personally. I usually complain when I see statistics being misused and/or when numbers are posted without proper references.

You are merely insulting your own intelligence and depth/width of thinking by this sort of dogmatic pedantic views.

If someone described ‘the cup is quite full of water’.
The above is very subjective.

But if one is objective minded, one will translate the above to,
What was described was ‘the cup is 75-95% filled with water’.
What is wrong with this estimate of a range of %?

If the matter is serious enough, one can measure and confirm the actual % and state of the above estimate.

[phyllo]

You didn’t measure anything. In this thread, you used percentages for subjectivity and objectivity…things which are not measurable.
Ironically you do it in a thread about science… Which is entirely about measurement.
LOL

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

You didn’t measure anything. In this thread, you used percentages for subjectivity and objectivity…things which are not measurable.
Ironically you do it in a thread about science… Which is entirely about measurement.
LOL

Note measurable?
Again, you are merely insulting your own intelligence and depth/width of thinking by this sort of dogmatic pedantic views.

Note one can measure [objectify] ‘beauty’ [subjectivity] in a beauty contest or any subjective activities, sports or elements.
Miss Universe is based on the rating of a group of judges using a set of criteria with weightages and the final result of who is Miss Universe is objective.
Such ratings can easily be interpreted in terms of %.
If Miss A the winner scored the net average of 9/10, that is 90% in term of %.

It is very easy to convert objectivity to percentages once we convert them to numbers.

One can also convert subjectivity to objectivity as I have demonstrated above.

The only limitation is the objectivity is not absolute and the point is 'objectivity is inter-subjectivity, i.e. inter-consensus amongst subjects.

[James_S_Saint]

@Prismatic567

the point is 'objectivity is inter-subjectivity, i.e. inter-consensus amongst subjects.

That is one of your many false axioms. Consensus has nothing at all to do with objectivity.

And even if it wasn’t, as phyllo pointed out, you have not provided those conversion numbers and your method for obtaining them (measurement methods), but rather just threw out what is obviously your mere preferred opinion of the percentages.

[phyllo]

Note one can measure [objectify] ‘beauty’ [subjectivity] in a beauty contest or any subjective activities, sports or elements.
Miss Universe is based on the rating of a group of judges using a set of criteria with weightages and the final result of who is Miss Universe is objective.
Such ratings can easily be interpreted in terms of %.
If Miss A the winner scored the net average of 9/10, that is 90% in term of %.

You could create a definition of beauty based on the number of moles on a person’s body. A body with three moles would be the most beautiful body. A beauty contest winner could be chosen based on such an objective criteria. However, that is not an objective measure of beauty because the only connection between beauty and mole count is your subjective opinion. You could have just as easily said that the most beautiful body has no moles. And the contest winner would have been someone else.

You have merely agreed to standardize your subjective opinions.

You could do this for practically anything. You could come to an agreement that the best color has a wavelength of 500 nanometers. Scientifically demonstrating that there is a best color. :b

The only limitation is the objectivity is not absolute and the point is 'objectivity is inter-subjectivity, i.e. inter-consensus amongst subjects.

Objectivity is quite different from inter-subjectivity. Objectivity refers to events which take place without anyone thinking about them or agreeing about them. They are mind-independent events.

The charge on an electron does not depend on what you think, want or believe about it. It is not subjective or inter-subjective. It is what it is.
The inter-subjective aspect is the agreement to measure the charge in some particular system of units, to display the results in Arabic numbers, base 10, etc. IOW, how to get information from one subject to another subject.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

Note one can measure [objectify] ‘beauty’ [subjectivity] in a beauty contest or any subjective activities, sports or elements.
Miss Universe is based on the rating of a group of judges using a set of criteria with weightages and the final result of who is Miss Universe is objective.
Such ratings can easily be interpreted in terms of %.
If Miss A the winner scored the net average of 9/10, that is 90% in term of %.

You could create a definition of beauty based on the number of moles on a person’s body. A body with three moles would be the most beautiful body. A beauty contest winner could be chosen based on such an objective criteria. However, that is not an objective measure of beauty because the only connection between beauty and mole count is your subjective opinion. You could have just as easily said that the most beautiful body has no moles. And the contest winner would have been someone else.

You have merely agreed to standardize your subjective opinions.

You could do this for practically anything. You could come to an agreement that the best color has a wavelength of 500 nanometers. Scientifically demonstrating that there is a best color. :b

Yes we can objectify any subjectivity.
However there are degrees of objectivity, i.e. ranging from 1% to 100%, i.e. my original proposition with examples.

Thus the degrees of objectivity for events like beauty contests, sports events, arts, music, dance, etc. may be assigned low % of objectivity. E.g. 10-40% depending on the methods used.
In contrast verified and tested scientific theories could be rated above 80% to > 95%. This is due to the rigoristic standards that are set for recognized scientific theories that are verified within the scientific method and framework.
Verified scientific theories would be rated with higher percentages because of their rigoristic standards of verifications, i.e. experiment testing, repeatability, peer review and other higher objectivity standards.
Beauty contests and the likes have lower % of objectivity because of their degree of non-repetition.
What I have done is merely estimating and we can come with a reasonable relative comparison of objectivity of various methods if we do a serious investigation into them.

Therefore there is a range of degrees and % of objectivity.
Don’t think you can challenge this point.

The only limitation is the objectivity is not absolute and the point is 'objectivity is inter-subjectivity, i.e. inter-consensus amongst subjects.

Objectivity is quite different from inter-subjectivity. Objectivity refers to events which take place without anyone thinking about them or agreeing about them. They are mind-independent events.
The charge on an electron does not depend on what you think, want or believe about it. It is not subjective or inter-subjective. It is what it is.
The inter-subjective aspect is the agreement to measure the charge in some particular system of units, to display the results in Arabic numbers, base 10, etc. IOW, how to get information from one subject to another subject.

Taken to the ultimate level, objectivity is inter-subjective, i.e. implicit inter-consensus amongst subjects.

Show me an event or aspect of reality that is absolutely mind-independent?
It is impossible because the human mind is somehow involved. Even, if your mind or my mind are not involved, the general human minds of some collective are involved.

The basis of intersubjectivity is because humans has the same generic DNA and thus capable of basic shared-information.

Humans can have realization and consensus on what is to be actual at different levels of reality from the grossest [physical solids] to the refined [quarks]. However as we dig deeper into reality, you will note mind-interdependent is inevitable/obvious as in relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

Humans has not been able to ground reality on any ultimate mind-independent substance/essence.
Whatever is the ‘ultimate’ substance, it will always be conditioned by the human conditions and intersubjective consensus [implicit and explicit].

Note the ‘no god’s eye view’ default of reality.
The conception and actualization of any ultimate that is to be absolutely mind-independent is illusory.

[omar]

@Artimas

Science deals with logical explanation and reason sometimes observable objectivity. Belief deals with dreaming and imagination without evidence needed.

If this was true then there would be no “false prophets”.