Science as a religion... | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Science as a religion...

Shai Gar said:
No such thing as Subjective Truth. What you're talking about is "Relayed information".
Click to expand...
I was going to say that subjective truth is 'I have observed this and believe it to be true' as well as say that our senses are limited so we can thusly interpret raw stimuli differently. But I gave it some thought, and I like the way you conceptualize the idea of truth a little better.
 
Last edited:
It's not "true" to you, you simply believe it.

The only things that can be true are Objective Facts.
 
I don't understand this.

I just thought that whatever someone thought was true is what they believed.

How can anything be any different?
 
My personal truth is that I'm the most awesome person ever.
 
Shai Gar said:
See? That's a good example of a belief being bullshit.
Click to expand...

Don't criticise my beliefs! they're very personal to me. :Cry:

You can't prove they aren't true!
 
You can't understand awesome unless you have studied awesome for many years and have accepted awesomeness into your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLastMohican
Can you give me an example of an objective fact Shai Gar?

I'm also wondering; is your definition of Objective Fact a belief, a philosophy, something that can be tested by science, or something else entirely?
 
Shai Gar said:
It's not "true" to you, you simply believe it.

The only things that can be true are Objective Facts.
Click to expand...

' Objective facts seem to be a bit of a misnomer, we certainly think we know some things are facts but we can't possibly know anything for sure, that's just the limitations of being 'beings'
 
Reon said:
' Objective facts seem to be a bit of a misnomer, we certainly think we know some things are facts but we can't possibly know anything for sure, that's just the limitations of being 'beings'
Click to expand...

That's why there are three levels in epistimology where beings can only reach the second:
Thought
Belief
Knowledge.

Fact and Truth are creatures of Knowledge.
 
So beliefs then are an stem from knowledge. An example would be 'I know the bible says X and Y, therefore I believe X and Y'. While you can observe and therefore know the bible says X and Y, you can only know it says that. Whereas if you believe it then it is still a belief, which is a lower level of epistemology. If you know that something happened, which accorded with your belief in what the bible says, then you still only believe that. The confirmation of belief still makes it only a belief.

An objective fact is knowledge, your observation of an event is knowledge because you know you have observed the event -- therefore it is both fact and knowledge that you have observed the event.

If thats true at what point does a fact become an 'objective fact' -- is it the point where others have observed that fact to be true as well? Or is 'objective' just a redundant word since a fact which was subjective would not be a fact at all?
 
Last edited:
Science is boring - at the end of the day, no matter which of the physical sciences you "follow" - it all ends up being an exercise in mathematics.

I used to work in a genetics/molecular biology laboratory - all you did was mathematics all day.

Science, as practiced by SCIENTISTS could never be a religion - its just a lot of hard work.
 
Zero Angel said:
So beliefs then are an stem from knowledge. An example would be 'I know the bible says X and Y, therefore I believe X and Y'. While you can observe and therefore know the bible says X and Y, you can only know it says that. Whereas if you believe it then it is still a belief, which is a lower level of epistemology. If you know that something happened, which accorded with your belief in what the bible says, then you still only believe that. The confirmation of belief still makes it only a belief.

An objective fact is knowledge, your observation of an event is knowledge because you know you have observed the event -- therefore it is both fact and knowledge that you have observed the event.

If thats true at what point does a fact become an 'objective fact' -- is it the point where others have observed that fact to be true as well? Or is 'objective' just a redundant word since a fact which was subjective would not be a fact at all?
Click to expand...
... No.

Your problem is that you're egocentric and egotistical. This is coming from ME. Learn to see the world for what it is, and your own view of it for what it is.
 
I'm just trying to understand your view. And I do that by echoing my own understanding of it.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by calling me egotistical.
 
Last edited:
To get you to look at your point of view and precisely where it's coming from.
 
I know where its coming from, maybe you can modify what I said in your own words so that I might better understand where you're coming from.
 
You can't prove that anything is true in a universal way because it takes methods and beliefs in those methods to accomplish that sort of thing. For thousands of years human beings have been using the religion card to explain things, and now we've established Science as a more modern way to explain things. Buit in the end it's all explanations and you can't prove anything uless someone believes in your system. Why do we have to have an reason for things to do what they do, anyway? Half of the time people are shocked because of a scentific finding, it isn't the fact that 'dinosaurs lived 3,000 years ago and may have died off due to a deadly astroid' that's surprising. It's 'dinosaurs died off..' the reason itself is pretty irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back