Art vs. Porn

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>A Theories is meaningless if no one believes it. And, until it becomes a fact/law(whichever term you choose to use here), it is merely something that is believed to be true, thus it is a belief. Yes, it does have to follow certain criteria, which is why not all beliefs are theories.

Does this make any sense? I honestly would not be surprised if it doesn't, but I tried my best. </STRONG>

No, unfortunately I don't think I understand.

As you know, a law is a descriptive statement of how something in the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. (The laws in physics are a prototype example - and a physics law of course also has to be mathematically proven.)

A hypothesis is a rather tentative, more or less well funded, statement about the world. It can be speculative - the main thing is that it has to be testable. If I make the statement "there is a demon in my nose" I must also deduct a way to test this hypothesis. If I carry out tests, and my hypthesis turn out to be incorrect, it must either be abandoned or modified. Hypothesis is rather broad term. It can refer to a single statement, or a system of statements where parts are very well funded, and other parts are more speculative and not yet fully tested.

A system of hypothesis can, when tested and repeatedly verified, mature into a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well funded explanation model regarding some aspects of the world. It is a large system, often incorporating many different laws and tested hypothesis.

When something is observed and repeatedly confirmed for many times, it's sometimes called a fact in science. The earth is round is considered such a fact (although I know some people does not believe so). Another such fact is that all life on earth has common ancestry, but I know that you SS don't believe in this.
However, a fact in science is never final and unchangeble - one day discoveries might be made that will change such facts.

During the scientific process, an hypothesis can become a fact (or in maths or physics, often a law). Such "single facts" are then used to build up a theory. A theory can also become a "fact". The heliocentric solar system was once a hypothesis, then it became a theory and now it's considered a fact.
So, since a scientific theory has to rest upon tested hypothesis, facts and if applicable, laws, I can't see how it could be interchangeble with belief.

As I define the word "belief" it different from scientific theory just because it doesn't need to rest upon observable facts, tested hypothesis and it's doesn't need to fulful all the criteria I listed in my former post.

Just an example - if everybody who believes in one or several gods would put their faith under the same requirements as a scientific theory, there would be no religious people since the existance of a transcendental being can't be tested scientifically. God's existence is not falsifiable according to Popper's principle of falsification. You can never disprove the existance of something, since that would require an endless series of observations. (If we didn't find it this time around, we might find it next time, with better equipment, by looking at other places etc.)

I agree with my professor (he is a christian) that science and religion have different functions and concern different aspects of human life and the world around us.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> No, unfortunately I don't think I understand.</STRONG>

I think you're analyzing this a little too much...

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>As you know, a law is a descriptive statement of how something in the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. (The laws in physics are a prototype example - and a physics law of course also has to be mathematically proven.)

A hypothesis is a rather tentative, more or less well funded, statement about the world. It can be speculative - the main thing is that it has to be testable. If I make the statement "there is a demon in my nose" I must also deduct a way to test this hypothesis. If I carry out tests, and my hypthesis turn out to be incorrect, it must either be abandoned or modified. Hypothesis is rather broad term. It can refer to a single statement, or a system of statements where parts are very well funded, and other parts are more speculative and not yet fully tested.

A system of hypothesis can, when tested and repeatedly verified, mature into a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well funded explanation model regarding some aspects of the world. It is a large system, often incorporating many different laws and tested hypothesis.

When something is observed and repeatedly confirmed for many times, it's sometimes called a fact in science. The earth is round is considered such a fact (although I know some people does not believe so). Another such fact is that all life on earth has common ancestry, but I know that you SS don't believe in this.
However, a fact in science is never final and unchangeble - one day discoveries might be made that will change such facts.

During the scientific process, an hypothesis can become a fact (or in maths or physics, often a law). Such "single facts" are then used to build up a theory. A theory can also become a "fact". The heliocentric solar system was once a hypothesis, then it became a theory and now it's considered a fact.
So, since a scientific theory has to rest upon tested hypothesis, facts and if applicable, laws, I can't see how it could be interchangeble with belief. </STRONG>

I must say that saying all of this was rather pointless. You're overanalyzing. When I said "fact/law," I merely meant something that is not just a thoery, but is definitely true. A theory is not definitely true. It is theoretically true. It is believed to be true. It is not interchangable in all instances. As I said, "All theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories."

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>As I define the word "belief" it different from scientific theory just because it doesn't need to rest upon observable facts, tested hypothesis and it's doesn't need to fulful all the criteria I listed in my former post. </STRONG>

You're assigning belief directly to religion. A belief is anything that a person believes.

Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary:
be·lief \be·'lef\ n 1: mental acceptance of something as real or true <a belief in your own ability> 2: religious faith; esp: CREED 3: the thing that is believed : CONVICTION, OPINION <political beliefs> [Middle English beleave] ? SYN BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE mean the assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer, whereas FAITH always does and implies trust and confidence even where there is no evidence or proof; CREDENCE implies intellectual acceptance but offers nothing about the soundness of the grounds for acceptance.

Don't confuse belief and faith. You're looking at belief from the idea that it is refering to religion. Definition 3 makes it interchangable with theory. Though this is not how I came to this conclusion, it does support my conclusion. Do you believe Einstein's Theories of Relavity? Do you believe the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening? If your answer to those is "yes" then they are your beliefs. As I've said, "All theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories." The thing that makes theories the scientific version of belief is the fact that they have to have actual basis in fact whereas a belief that is not scientific doesn't have to have a basis in fact.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Just an example - if everybody who believes in one or several gods would put their faith under the same requirements as a scientific theory, there would be no religious people since the existance of a transcendental being can't be tested scientifically. God's existence is not falsifiable according to Popper's principle of falsification. You can never disprove the existance of something, since that would require an endless series of observations. (If we didn't find it this time around, we might find it next time, with better equipment, by looking at other places etc.) </STRONG>

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with this. Remember my earlier statement about applying science to everything and everything to science. I do mean everything. Also, remember that Physics, particularly theoretical physics, looks at science in a more abstract way than biology. Even Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion, through science, that there is a God.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>I agree with my professor (he is a christian) that science and religion have different functions and concern different aspects of human life and the world around us. </STRONG>

Religion and science do have different functions and concern different aspects of human life; however, they do not conflict with each other as many believe and many would try to tell you. They coincide. I have mentioned how the account of creation in the Bible coincides directly with the geologic column. The only place where it really conflicts is evolution; and as evolution is just a theory, it is a conflicting belief. BTW, go ahead and bump the evolution topic whenever you're ready to continue that debate.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Another such fact is that all life on earth has common ancestry, but I know that you SS don't believe in this.</STRONG>

This brings up another point that is continuing what I've been saying. Everything is a belief. I believe that I am sitting at a computer typing this up right now. I believe that I'm in a house in Coolidge, Arizona. I believe that I am listening to music. How do I know if any of these things are true? These are all perceptions and I'm believing what I percieve, thus making these perceptions beliefs. Since things can be percieved right or wrong, how do I know I am percieving these things right? Yes, it is confusing, but if you really think about it, how do you know anything is real? Okay, I'm going to stop now before I make myself paranoid.

Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean They ain't out to get you.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

[C Elegans]

originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I must say that saying all of this was rather pointless. You're overanalyzing.

</STRONG>

If you are not interested in learning how scientists define science and use those terms in science, it might seem pointless, yes.

SS: When I said "fact/law," I merely meant something that is not just a thoery, but is definitely true. A theory is not definitely true. It is theoretically true. It is believed to be true. It is not interchangable in all instances. As I said, "All theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories."

My mistake, I thought you meant "fact/law" in the scientific sense. However, scientific theories are based on facts and/or laws. Thus, facts are also beliefs according to your definition, which makes it seem like your differentiating between fact and beliefs has no real function. More on this below.

SS: You're assigning belief directly to religion. A belief is anything that a person believes.

I was merely using religion as an example, which I also stated.

SS: 3: the thing that is believed : CONVICTION, OPINION <political beliefs>

Definition 3 makes it interchangable with theory. Though this is not how I came to this conclusion, it does support my conclusion. Do you believe Einstein's Theories of Relavity? Do you believe the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening? If your answer to those is "yes" then they are your beliefs.

I don't agree that definition 3 makes "belief" interchangeble with "scientific theory". I think you use the word "belief" in two different senses here.

Do you view the Theories of Relativity to be Einstein's personal opinions?

SS: I'm sorry, but I must disagree with this. Remember my earlier statement about applying science to everything and everything to science. I do mean everything.

I have no problem with you disagreing - I don't expect us to agree on those matters, as little as I would expect Eminem to agree with me on atheism
However, science has it's limitations just like everything else. Like Schrodinger once said: Science knows no beauty or ugliness, no good or bad.

SS: Also, remember that Physics, particularly theoretical physics, looks at science in a more abstract way than biology. Even Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion, through science, that there is a God.

Sure theoretical physics is a much more abstract science than biology, but it still has to fulfil the same basic criteria as all other science, and it also does.

Hawking is entitled to his opinions as you are entitled to yours, and I to mine. If he holds the opinion that a god must exist, that's his view. That does not mean it's the same thing as having scientific evidence, and this he has never claimed either. So, it doesn't matter the slightest for our discussion whether Hawkind has a personal belief in a god or not. Likewise, it doesn't matter for our discussion that he believes in evolution and has stated that man has evolved from apes. Hawking is an expert on astrophysics. He is not a biologist, and he can't know whether a god exists or not - no one can know.

The question of Hawkings belief, might have a curiosity value though. Hawkings cosmology has been used as an argument both for theism and atheism. Hawking himself has not stated his personal beliefs, but in his books and some interviews he has stated that it doesn't prove there is no god, but a god is not necessary.

I have read both Hawkings books and several lectures and papers. I haven't seen him state he does believe in a god, so if you have read such a statement, please post a refererce. I think it's unfair to anybody to assume what their personal believes are, unless they have stated it. Or is it in his new book? (It's not released here yet.)

SS: Religion and science do have different functions and concern different aspects of human life; however, they do not conflict with each other as many believe and many would try to tell you. They coincide.

I agree that science and religion does not need to be conflicting. Nobody has to choose between the two unless one choses to interpret things in a certain way. A literal interpretation of Gensis as the creation taking 7 earth-days, is conflicting with astrophysics as well as geology. A biblic interpretation that god did not use evoution as a method to create man, is confliciting with biology and genetics.

SS: BTW, go ahead and bump the evolution topic whenever you're ready to continue that debate.

I'd like to, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea. People have been complaing there's too much serious discussion at the board. Eminem has said goodbye for 2 months. I don't know if anyone else than you and me on this board is interested in this type of discussion. But I you wish, I know another board that is more specialized in scientific debates. Would you be interested in continuing there?

SS: Everything is a belief. I believe that I am sitting at a computer typing this up right now. I believe that I'm in a house in Coolidge, Arizona. I believe that I am listening to music. How do I know if any of these things are true? These are all perceptions and I'm believing what I percieve, thus making these perceptions beliefs. Since things can be percieved right or wrong, how do I know I am percieving these things right? Yes, it is confusing, but if you really think about it, how do you know anything is real? Okay, I'm going to stop now before I make myself paranoid.

I don't think you need to fear paranoia - at least because of this reasoning
I understand what you mean. This kind of philosophical questions and reasoning has been along for thousands of years. It is however not defined as science, but meta-science. Let's say you sit before your computer. The question about whether you exist or the computer exists, are metaphysical questions. The question of how you can know you and the computer exists, is called epistemology. Metaphysics and epistemology are two of the largest areas in philosophy. Any introduction course in philosophy would address these issues, so if you are interested in this type of questions, I definitely recommend you to study philosophy. Here's a link to a short description of [url="http://http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~celiasmi/Phil211/class8.html"]epistemology[/url]

What you mean with belief, is clearly something broader than I mean. If everything is a belief, then your statement above about the difference between fact and belief, makes no sense. You say a fact is definitely true. But a fact would also be based on belief according to your reasoning, so then there's no difference between fact and belief and a distiction between the two is useless.

So, it's a circle reasoning. According to your reasoning, a belief is a belief, a fact is also a belief and a theory is based on facts that are believes. This is indeed a worldview that you are entitled to have. But making distictions between the different terms is non sensical and if you don't realize it know, you will later learn that this is not "applying science to everything and everything to science", this is not science, it's meta-science.

I believe you are mixing things up

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Hawking is entitled to his opinions as you are entitled to yours, and I to mine. If he holds the opinion that a god must exist, that's his view. That does not mean it's the same thing as having scientific evidence, and this he has never claimed either.</STRONG>

Actually, Hawking's belief that God exists is based on the scientific evidence of the universe itself. It may not be testable, but not everything in theoretical physics is directly testable. That's why it is called Theoretical physics. It's theories based on observation, but not always testable. You've read Black Holes, Baby Universes, and other Short Essays?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>What you mean with belief, is clearly something broader than I mean. If everything is a belief, then your statement above about the difference between fact and belief, makes no sense. You say a fact is definitely true. But a fact would also be based on belief according to your reasoning, so then there's no difference between fact and belief and a distiction between the two is useless. </STRONG>

Eh, now, you're playing with semantics. Though fun, it's confusing you a bit, I think. A fact is what is believed to be definitely true. It was considered a fact that the Earth was flat. That fact was wrong. It all boils down to what you personally believed, thus it is all personal belief. However, you apply different rules to these beliefs that are called theories than you do to regular beliefs, making these beliefs scientific.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>But making distictions between the different terms is non sensical and if you don't realize it know, you will later learn that this is not "applying science to everything and everything to science", this is not science, it's meta-science. </STRONG>

Nah, it's science, just a viewpoint you don't yet see from.

I usually try to avoid stating these facts, but I think it necessary.

Someone once said there are two definitions of genius. One has to do with IQ. The other is someone who sees things in ways that no one else yet sees them. I'm a genius by both definitions. The first definition is meaningless for this discussion, but the second one explains what I meant earlier when I said I think differently than everyone else. I do think differently than everyone else. You know the old saying, "[insert name here] marches to the beat of a different drummer"? Well, my mom made a change to that saying to more accurately describe me. "Hotaru walks to the beat of a different piccolo." The stuff I've been saying about belief and theory may seem like meta-science to you, but it isn't. I just view things in different ways and very few people, if any, are ever able to comprehend many of these views I have. Personally, I'm getting rather tired of no one understanding me...

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>
One has to do with IQ. The other is someone who sees things in ways that no one else yet sees them. I'm a genius by both definitions. </STRONG>

A last question.
Do you mean it as a metaphoric way, or making reference to something else, in a figurative way???

Or you really mean you are Genius?

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>The other is someone who sees things in ways that no one else yet sees them</STRONG>

On principle i don't agree with this, many proclaimed genius' have based their theories on extrapolation from others work, i don't think it a blanket rule that a genius is defined by their unconventional thinking.

I also don't believe in the IQ tests, i think that it is a pointless test that judges retention of knowledge before intelligence.

[Waverly]

::Enter Waverly::
Self assessed geniuses are like telephone solicitors: adept at inflating their own image, but quite light on substance.

Language is flawed and inexact. That is why scientists attempt to agree on common definitions so needless effort does not go into miscommunication.

From the Harcourt Dictionary of Science and Technology [in order of certainty]:
hypothesis [h päth´ sis] Science. a [confusing term omitted] proposition that is based on certain assumptions and that can be evaluated scientifically.

theory Science. an explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. Theory, in popular use, is often assumed to imply conjecture or speculation, as in "Evolution is just a theory." In scientific use, however, to describe an explanation as a theory does not indicate it is uncertain. Progressing in degrees of uncertainty, a law is based on many observations of a natural phenomenon that demonstrate it to be true without exception

law Science. a scientific principle that is invariable under certain stated conditions; for example, Boyle's law holds that the product of the pressure of a gas times the volume of the gas will remain constant if temperature remains constant.

Anyone intent an confusing issues by introducing new definitions to established terms is not ‘marching to their own drummer’ they are engaging in anti-science in effort to advance an agenda that in untenable by more honest modes of discussion.

[Aegis]

Waverly! Is that you! wow... It's been some time... How have you been, ya wanker!

[Waverly]

I'm a genius by both definitions

Be that as it may, you should then be familiar with the logical fallacy known as argument from authority. You can give yourself any label you like, but it does not serve to add weight to your arguments. Since you should already know this [any genius would] then why make this mistake?

[Yshania]

Hey Waverly!! How are you?

[Waverly]

Aegis & Y: I am fine. Just a short lurk that turned into a short visit. I’m not sure what compelled me to stop by, but I’m aghast.

[Yshania]

@Waverly lol! We have had Weasel and Foul dropping by also...did you miss us too?

[Georgi]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>The other is someone who sees things in ways that no one else yet sees them. </STRONG>

Genius, or possibly a madman? Just because you see things in a different way from other people... Having a different opinion from everyone else makes you superior? What a load of rubbish.

@Waverly *big hugs* nice entrance, understated I thought, classy

[dragon wench]

Hi Waverly,
why don't you pull up a chair and stay a while.

[Waverly]

Greetings [and even a hug] from my old nemesis the Order of the Dark Flame? I’m afraid I’m off to a meeting, but I do believe I’ll be called upon to elaborate on my previous postings, so I may visit yet again.

My spirit can always be invoked with email or ICQ
\^/

[dragon wench]

originally by SS

Personally, I'm getting rather tired of no one understanding me...

This is a long established pattern? Perhaps you should endeavour to understand why this might be the case.

[Yshania]

@Georgi - lol! So we have eg Hitler, Manson, Bin Laden, all thought differently. Their genius is maybe in convincing others they are right...so their charisma is the genius, their ideology the madness.

Note these characters have fallen by their own swords. The greater the climb, the further the fall.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>@Georgi - lol! So we have eg Hitler, Manson, Bin Laden, all thought differently. Their genius is maybe in convincing others they are right...so their charisma is the genius, their ideology the madness.

Note these characters have fallen by their own swords. The greater the climb, the further the fall. </STRONG>

@Yshania, ROFLMAO speaking of swords......