the earth is revolving with 1000 mph at the equator. If this would be so, you would fly away; the sun consists 90% hydrogen, how is it protected? Why is it burning without oxygen? The only thing which was proven, was that force effects other force, and that there are scopes were that laws are not available. I like the part when you say, the reason lies in the deffinition.
Therefore I dont think, that it makes much sence to talk with people, who always claim how great science is.
I know I'm replying to a really old comment, but I had to.
Stars "burn" via nuclear fusion, not traditional combustion... Also, there's this wonderful thing that keeps you from floating off into space. It's called "gravity."
Please pick up an elementary science text book and actually read it.
A lot about science isn't fully discovered yet, and there is still a lot more to be known. But each wrong or incomplete discovery leads us a step closer to the truth. (Jules Verne)
A scientist arguing semantics. Who'd have thunk it. I believe W00T just got added to the dictionary. I believe science is a helpful method. I believe scientists are just as deluded as everyone else.
My name is Minister Mustafaa Abdulhaq Abdallah. I am the minister for the 3rd Church of Jerusalem House of Prayer Temple of God. The God that I serve and love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength is Truth. Truth is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. I now welcome you as a new member of my religion. No Poo. God bless.
More or less, "Belief in science" means one trusts in the tried and true methodologies of science to find objective fact of a yet unknown state or quality of the natural world. Saying one "believes in science" makes perfect sense, it's part of our language. It only stops making sense when you fixate on particulars and convince yourself it makes no sense.
It's not sloppy at all. It's like saying one believes in gravity. It's always worked in the past, and one can always assume it will continue working just has it has without changing.
It is sloppy to use a word that the religious can latch on to claiming that those that theorize, model and act on the basis of best [testable] hypothesis are just another faith. Just like them. There is something fundamentally different here.
There can be no 'grammatical' error here, only *semantic*. Hence my pt is that a distinction in methodology can & should be made clear with clear use of language, particularly as the distinction removes the risk of having science called an 'opposing religion' by deists.
Semantics, sure. Ok, so now we're left with... what? Atheists so entrenched in logic that they make youtube videos about such inane drivel as the use of the word "believe" in the context of science? And I believe you're thinking of theists and not deists. Deists are totally different.
One can have a belief in a methodology - as in, a belief in its efficacy as a tool of unlocking the secrets of the Universe. Because, as we both know, there are those who do not.
Let me understand, you want to defer using the word "belief," even though I showed that it's grammatically correct, so theists wont abuse that use of language?
Yes, oddly the purpose of language is to make clear, to distinguish, to convince.
Oh, and I thought you had learned that 'grammatically' was the lowest form of compliance. All sorts of nonsense is grammatically correct without any logical content.
I want to talk to people. If they did not have a bad influence on world peace and welfare then f-them, but they are dangerous folk in their naive form.
On matters like global warming, drugs, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, cloning etc., etc, people still need to be active in listening to bodies of Science. Usually, there will be 2 groups that would debate these issues through the use of Science. Now, from the evidence provided by each group, you need to decide who convinced you to "believe" them and why.
I agree with you on these things and I would include many others in to your list. Drugs are a perfect example of what I am talking about. A company does the Science to ensure a product is safe. When you put that pill in you mouth you are trusting them that it is. I am not suggesting that the world should come to a halt.
Yes, but the reason you need to "believe" these conflicting explanations (Drugs, Global Warming, etc) is because they involve *politics* along with their science.
The scientific *METHOD*, however, demands no faith whatsoever. It is empirical evidence.
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." ~ Dan Barker
Science is not a belief. It is a method or a tool to gain knowledge with. So, it doesn't make sense when someone says, "I believe in Science", as he or she would say, "I believe in the Paranormal, Supernatural, Superstition, Pseudoscience, Spiritual, Religion and other Beliefs."
There is a difference between a "discovery" and Science. You can either "believe" or not "believe" a "discovery". If you're skeptical of a certain "discovery" that was discovered by a certain group or individual through the use of Science, you still need to use Science to validate that "discovery".
You can't use any other method or tool than Science for authenticity. You still need prove or disapprove a "discovery" with the use of Science. Again, people will either "believe" or "disbelieve" YOUR "discovery" based on the level of credibility and evidence you can provide derived through the use of Science.
Giving lame excuses like people don't know enough or don't have enough time to validate the integrity of knowledge obtained through the Scientific method is unacceptable. If people can have the time to spend with the Paranormal, Supernatural, Superstition, Pseudoscience, Spiritual, Religion and other Beliefs, it would be more useful if they use this time with the study of Science instead, before getting involved in matters of such beliefs and/or faith.
My point wasn't that people shouldn't test science. My point was that they don't for a variety of reasons. They don't know all the facts for themselves. In that, if they trust the theory is true they have faith in it. They also must have faith in the people performing the experiment.
Only if you have an unlimited amount of time but "science" doesn't even say that. I think they say at the most it is 12 billion years. In addition, statistically (in science) there is a point when something is said to be impossible
I have read about both sides. Have you? When you say "creationist". They are not saying that horses or humans haven't changed. They are say that one species didn't evolve from another. That cow didn't evolve from a whale and so on. (I saw or read that one somewhere).
Yes, I have, there's nothing to read in Creationistland, they ignore facts, being unfair in giving out logical fallacies and below-the-belt attacks, and pure flat-out LIE to people.
Saying 'there are not proofs!' when the proofs are overflowing is a lie. It's not "misunderstanding", and it's not "misinterpreting", it's a brute, cowardish lie.
Cow WOULDN'T evolve from whale, as they are both DIFFERENT BRANCHES.
I think the premise of this video is dishonest. Meaning I don't think anyone would say 1 + 1 = 2 requires faith. I would say that if you believe DNA exists you are taking it on faith that it does. Most people do not have the tools or the ability to view the double helix. If you put this in comparison to the way they have taught the atom in the past. (Now they are saying Electrons don't actually rotate. They vibrate.)
AH - finally a video that explains this to ppl! (^-^) Lately I've noticed some videos and comments around in which ppl continue to claim that science is a religion because it requires faith...(O.o) In the mean time they sit there at their fully garnished quadcores debating this via satelite internet... ;p
Maybe I am wrong, but this video assumes those are the correct definitions of 'belief.' Which are the correct definitions? Because according to Merriam-Webster a belief is also...
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
That's not a good definition, it rules out false, religious and any kind of unsubstantiated beliefs. You can ditch the part after "especially" and that would be a more accurate definition. Consider this: you can hold the belief that earth is flat because you don't have evidence otherwise or any knowledge at all about the shape of the earth.
I've struck gold! Check out 'Emotional Stone's 2 comments on Easy Bake Lovin' - Ep. 2. Because I thought it would be funny to put the word 'diarrhoea' under the movie (this is categorically not true).
Semantics, nothing more. By picking on the word "belief" you skip over the real point people are trying to make, which is obvious. They hold the facts of science as true while still believing in some things which have not or cannot be proven true or false. Those saying they "believe" in science and religion know that science is factual. Oh, and on a quantum level, science does require belief.
no thats not true. concerned quantuum physics you may believe in the -interpretation- of the results but it doesn't require believe as you embody it. what I mean is lets say I believe in Schrödingers interpretations or whatever - when new facts come up that state this interpretation was wrong, then I will have to refuse my believes and I will have no problems with that.
BUT there will never be such a thing like a contrary evidence for God.
to defend your first 2 sentences a bit on the other hand I have to say wouln'd judge anyone who says "I believe in sciece" too, because language isn't correct as mathematics and I would also state 'I believe in science' just to express that I'm not a person who is blind for physical explenations because of religion. I mean nobody talks from a dictionary :)
Oh, well, of course that I'm not against the General sentence "I believe in Science" or the general "I believe" statement. I am well aware that not everyone who say it follow the type I introduced in the video. I am simply against creationists using this "I believe in Science" statement to show how "empathic" they are while rejecting proven facts.. Hope that explains it better.
Well. Apparently, the reject everything that doesn't fit their dogma; that includes anything related to evolution ("THERE IS A MISSING LINK!! I don't care you show me proof against it, there still IS A MISSING LINK!!"), cosmology ("The sun may be shrinking! ya! It just may!" or my personal favorite "comets are too fragile.. they melt within a few years so the universe cannot be millions of years old")... So it doesn't take long. They reject it all.
Isn't that faith, belief, or whatever? Maybe not "the science" but in what you think it means. They are doing the same thing. That is a little different that rejecting "the science".
I actually think most evolutionist pull the same thing. There are many holes in the Theory. I mean there is a real issues with the evolution of a single human cell. They super complex. proteins need to be in a certain order. The double helix needs to be attached at the end. I mean crazy complex. I don't see why we wouldn't question the idea that it just happened by chance.
What you're specifying are not holes. There *is not issue* with the human cell. We can explain how cells differ and develop in different species. The double helix..? I don't understand what you mean by that.. As to the complexity -- fallacy from ignorance; the fact *you* don't understand how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work this way, or that other people don't understand how it works.
Well, show me the experiment of the natural spontaneous development of life. "Evolution" would claim that cells evolved. How is something you can't prove fact. It isn't. you have to take what you observe and make theories about it. Evolution in context of the missing link is a theory. At best you can support selective mutation as a fact.
Actually, that wasn't experimental. Again, please read about science. There are experiments about changes in genes, observations that support it, fossils that support it to the tiny step (check out the horse evolution, for example).
Your claims are not quite science, they're strawmen. Read about evolution; it's quite hard to explain everything from scratch in a 500-char limit box.
I know what science is. My point isn't that everything is bad and untrue when it comes to fact. But, even in this post you are referring to supporting a theory. What tiny step. They don't "know" "can't test". They hypothesize and come up with a theory. Some theory's become accepted. That doesn't make them fact.
The difference between creationism and science is more than just facts, it's debate-tactics and thought-methods. Creationists are dogmatic, science is rational empirical evidence.
Do what you will with the evidence, science is the one that collects them, while creationism brutally crushes them so that they won't have to part from their comfortable dogma.
Funny you seem to be so hung up on creationist being wrong. I mean you talk about dogma. I see you have so much "Faith" in the science community. Faith in men collecting facts and making conclusions. The fact is that the reason science works at all is because we continually prove those conclusions to be wrong.
To answer your question.... I believe in a creator. More specifically the God of the Bible. Did God cause animals to evolve? I don't know. Did he zap them here? I don't know. If he is God then he could have but I do not claim to have evidence of it. And if it is true it doesn't matter what men think. I think that dogma goes both ways and that it shouldn't only be applied to the Christians or Creationists. Evolutionists are as human as anyone else and have the same tendencies toward dogma.
The whole point of this video was to refute the unsupportable claim that science is dogmatic & it has succeeded in doing so. Every scientific breakthrough, including Darwin, is proof positive that science changes when presented with new evidence. If no evidence can be provided to prove the existence of any god, science cannot ethically support the claim. Though if you wish to believe in something for no good reason, you're welcome to do so.
Science is empirical evidence based on observation. There is nothing to do with faith or belief in it. If you don't believe an observational fact is true (and you are ENCOURAGED, in science, to doubt it) you can devise a repeated test to witness it yourself.
That's how revelations happen in Science. NOTHING to do with belief, let alone dogmatic one.
All science is seen as a cohesive generator of facts through evidence and this must be accepted or a person is irrational... even if it is for example theoretical physics...
A small minority of "believers" who claim that there is material evidence for God are accepted by people arguing against belief as the spokespersons for a much larger majority who don't...
Mooeypoo - you got the wrong idea - I'm not contesting that science is logical and bases its ideas on verifiable fact etc., but what I am saying is that your average Joe swallows up everything "scientists" tell them without actually verifying the facts themselves. So, essentially, I'm agreeing with you.
Unlike religion, people don't take science by faith. Science unlike religion is based on facts. The goes with George Washington. People believe in George Washington by historical facts by people who lived during his lifetime not by faith. mathematics are also based on facts not faith.
No, that's not quite true. Having a fact in the form of a fossil link found in multiple areas in the world is not the "same kind" as people accounts. Think about a murder trial: finding a bloody knife with the perp's finger prints and a film of him committing the murder is not the same value in court as someone saying he saw the crime.
Not to mention the fact that some of these eyewitness accounts are doubtful, and don't fit one another.
Yeah the fossil thing is different although open to interpretation, depending on confidence in the method of aging such evidence... and I don't know enough to be able to choose between the evolutionary or creationist paradigm as far as that is concerned... and numbers of scientists on either side don't swing it for me! Think flat earth.
I referred to George Washington and Jesus. As there are contradictions in sports reports of a match from the day before I don't feel that contradictions are enough to say that didn't happen. Red Bulls played LA Galaxy yesterday no matter what... ;-)
You need to do more research in this area and not the christian only area where they talk about this. The people who wrote about him considered him to just be a legend. 1st century Ad Palestine has no historical records of Jesus.
Josephus, Tacitus... and why are the writings of the apostles not held as historical records? Does that mean that Washington's family members, colleagues, friends and general people who have an interest in this "great president" will be removed from the historical record?
People who wrote about Washington and the other founding fathers were actually around during their lifetimes. People are not even sure who wrote some parts of the bible. These writers didn't actually believe that they were writing about a historical person. There are many people who could have been Jesus.
Still in methodological terms one is no better than the other... my point. You are arguing specifics and from your belief that those sources for Washington were better. Were you there to ask? No. So both positions rely on faith of sorts...
None of us were there, including yourself. The sources about Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin are more accurate. Nobody says that they believe in the founding fathers based on faith. The churches that I attend said to believe in Jesus by faith, they didn't use faith for anyone else. No one uses faith to believe in Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Many christians don't find it necessary to do historical research on the bible and Jesus.
Absolutely not... why do historical research for something that is as real to them as breathing? Jesus is a living reality for some believers... not those that are forced I'll grant you... but for those you do what the Bible asks and get the results it promises... no research or confirmation necessary.
The problem is Jesus isn't real to everyone. Some people believe that he was just a human. The pagans believe that their gods are real. The christians will say that there is no historical evidence for their Gods. Christians don't believe in the Koran and Book of Mormons. Muslims and Mormons believe their books to be historical without research and that they should be obeyed.
So how does that effect someone with the living experience of a real Jesus? I can't see that it does... because they are not playing the rational/logical game. They have personal experience of healing, abundance, freedom from guilt and a host of wonderful friends and strong families.
The jesus thing is just an emotional high. These TV evangelists never show actual proof of a supernatural healing. Abundance comes from hard work. Freedom from guilt comes from being a good human. Non-believers have wonderful friends and strong families. People use ration and logic in every area of their lives except their religion. People bend and change the rules for their religion.
"Non-believers have wonderful friends and strong families."
See how you switch the argument... we weren't talking about non-believers but how believers don't need to figure out material evdience for Jesus.
I'm sure you can provide evdience for your emotional high thesis?
I have witnessed supernatural healing... so I have a first hand account. I know that outside of law courts this kind of eye witness testimony is not acceptable... lol
I didn't switch the argument. I am telling the truth. I mention non-believers because christians usually believe non-believers can't be happy. I don't let my emotions get in the way of my rational thinking. People once worshipped Saturn without material evidence, now most people believe that Saturn is just a myth. Until I see evidence, I will not believe in supernatural healings. I am not going to take someone's word for it which is what christians usually do.
Sometimes... oftentimes they practice openmindedness until they are convinced, such conviction coming through personal experience of either receipt of the promises of belief or a supernatural experience...
Well some of the "12 disciples" wrote the new testament. Of course some deny that however. There is always someone to dispute anything. The scriptures were certainly writen by someone that was alive while christ was alive.
Are you or do you like philosophy? [I would first like to understand whether the pious or holy is beloved of the gods because is holy or holy because it is beloved of the gods?]
And what I'm trying to say is that you're lack of intelligence to invent valid arguments is shown to such far extents, that I've actually considered not to report you. Agh.. the power of pitty.
Pitty lost, btw. So did your arguments, apparently.
Stop feeding the trolls dear. You are a bit better than that.
But more importantly, to what end does a vendetta against religion serve? Not so much this particular video--largely an exercise in semantics that I am afraid you would lose to a linguist.
Attacking religion will not replace man's innate desire for identity, purpose. Until you can find a suitable replacement for "purpose" I am afraid you are chasing your tail.
Gravity is really not understood by science, though no one would deny the fact gravity exists and some attributes are described correctly, it's warping around mass and bending of space for example, but gravity is mistakenly thought to be an attribute of matter.. Gravity is a pushing together of matter, a universal pressure (steady state acceleration) and not a pull, commonly taught as fact.
Another great contribution by the one and only mooeypoo. The more videos you post, the more knowledge that gets spread to the world. You're on the brink of genius girl, keep it up; so I can keep learning!
Good explanation. That's why I stand on faith alone. I would also add that Torah study can also be a logical process. Has not our scientific discovery that the earth revolves around the sun lead us to reinterpret the scriptures? Even the Rabbinic traditions vary and are open to change. Faith is a process just as much as the scientific method and the two intersect at times.
I think you too quickly discarded the various definitions of belief. When people say, "I believe in science", I think of belief in the sense of the 3rd definition you went over; Confidence, faith, trust. And "science", in this case, is probably refering to the method, since science is not a single entity. We all have confidence, faith, trust (ie. belief) that science is the best method for understanding the physical world around us.
Additionally, argueing over semantics really seems a waste of time. So long as people aren't building shrines to science and sacraficing motherboards to appease it for favors, we can all assume that when they use the word "belief", it's simply for lack of a better word to use to express such confidence and trust. The fact that people may also have "belief" in some irrational things doesn't necessarily mean that because science is by definition rational, one may not have belief in it.
JustOneEarth I have to agree with you on this, it's just splitting hairs.. all this concern over semantics is best left to the grammer queens.. anyway, loved your comment about sacrificing motherboards..
First of all, mathematics is not a science in the modern usage of the term. Math is not established empirically, the rest of science is.
Second of all, I think you're misunderstanding people--when they say that they do not believe in science, they are merely espousing doubts as to the validity of claims established through science. One can do this in various ways--one such way is the humean way--simply deny necessary connection between cause and effect and science is shot.
I think I disagree with part of this. Dictionarydot com is only one source of definitions. From Merriam- Webster, "3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
btw, if 1+1=2 is tautological because it's "repeating" the same thing twice, would that mean 2+1=3 isn't and 2+2=4 is? If it does, then it's .. uhh.. just the form of the language, isn't it? It doesn't make it "not true" just an "audible observation" (of sorts) that you just used the same 'word' twice. No?
1+1=2 is tautological only in the form that is called redundant, it is not an actual tautology... I was trying to say that and that you were right, except what suprfin was describing was the argument form, not the truth of the statement. Ughh, I've added confusion with my efforts. 1+1=2 is also tautologous logically, but that is different than the redundant factor which only applies to the form of the proposition itself and not the truth of the proposition.
The bible said that the earth was round first, the people tried to disprove this first but the bible siad it all along. The bible uses math. So to say that belief is not for math, that's just dumb.
Ah, no, it didn't twice. First, it wasn't the first by a long shot, and second, it did NOT say that. Galileo was almost killed for "refuting" the bible's "flat earth" myth.
The pope only apologized a few years ago.
If you want to not believe 1+1=2, or that you do not need objective facts to achieve progress, I wish you good luck in life.
The bible doesn't claim a flat earth. There is some imagery that if you took literally you could make that claim. "Ends of the earth" "Four corners" stuff like that. Those are all in Job. I think the bible uses alot of word pictures to express things. It called jesus the foundation. I don't think they meant he is made of rock or something.
btw, the bible did NOT use math.. if you are refering to the "bible code", I can find "god does not exist" and "ha ha I am god and you are all suckers" in a matter of minutes in the bible. It proves n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
The scientific method is not science per se. Science is cause and effect. The scientific method as it implies is the method of science. Btw conclusions are not subjective, a conclusion can be wrong, or right if it is honest.
I didn't say conclusions are subjective, I said conclusions are not the scientific method, the METHOD to reach them is the scientific method, which is the opposite of subjective :)
My point was that if you argue about something (or "doubt" or "believe" something) it would be the conclusion itself. You may doubt conclusions, that's actually part OF science; you can doubt gravity, for example, but as long as you find no particular flaw in the conclusion, it's not going anywhere to doubt it. Progress comes from people who doubt conclusions and try to double check them.
Trying to put together above comment and your previous about "blind faith" in science. I cannot possibly be well read on all areas of science. I have evidence that the scientific method and science community finds truth in how things work. So I have "faith" in them. Not blind faith though
You may have faith in a community but you're not being scientific nonetheless, since science is about comprehension, not belief, and you don't need to be well read in all areas of science to check the reasoning and veracity of a claim, you just need your brain.
btw just because a person is right about something doesn't mean s/he may be right about everything else, because the information is still unverified. In logics that's the fallacy called "appeal to authority" and that's exactly the same fallacy religious people rely on. Belief is false knowledge.
God is an appeal to authority, but confidence in an expert would be different I think. I am confident my doctor can diagnose my illness better than a priest. He could still be wrong, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would not call him infallible, though. The medical community would increase the confidence, more experts, etc.
You are confident with REASON with your doctor - or I would hope so - you have proof that his methods work, you know that he has a specific method to work by, you know that the field of medicine is a reliable one. If, for instance, you did not know any of these, or, for another instance, your doctor started telling you about weird experimental drugs that are pseudoscientific and have no concrete proof of results, then you would probably STOP having confidence in him.
As for me, in my best interest I would want to know what the doctor is doing to me and even look for second opinions since obviously I'd be alot closer to the best treatment possible. lol but I would look for a priest to pray for me.
Exactly. Skepticism is never wrong, imho, if done correctly. That's what I meant by being skeptic of the "conclusion" -- requesting a second opinion means that you trust the METHOD of medicine, but may be skeptical of the specific conclusion by a specific doctor(s). If you do this using logic and objective proof hunt, your odds of getting the best treatments are increasing significantly.
yeah, it's indeed very healthy to see if there's something wrong with a conclusion. Check this funny example why conclusions have to be looked upon carefully - The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the child's handwriting. Does having big feet make it easier to write? No, it means the child is older :P
for example The atomic theory, which is theory, meaning that it is not factual, but theoretical. Yet all knowledge of natural material, i.e. the periodic table, and the way protons,neutrons, and electrons
are arrange is simple conjecture. Remember science is only one way of looking at things. To imply observation or using science is the only way to understand things is untrue, from my perspective.
AAARGH! All this science talk hurts my mind! TIME TO WATCH SOME HUMOROUSLY SIMPLE-MINDED VIDEOS
DamnedUsernameThing 1 year ago
do you believe, that nasa photos aren´t phonies ?
hollow0rld 3 years ago
I believe, the world is a round. But i haven´t discovered it yet.
hollow0rld 3 years ago
« I believe, the world is a round. But i haven´t discovered it yet. »
That's nice.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
But you can be relatively certain, can't you? Use a little math.
Let's see some more science discussions and less religious ones because we're not getting anywhere with these. It's like running a 3-legged race.
;)
SaintKnyte 2 years ago
the earth is revolving with 1000 mph at the equator. If this would be so, you would fly away; the sun consists 90% hydrogen, how is it protected? Why is it burning without oxygen? The only thing which was proven, was that force effects other force, and that there are scopes were that laws are not available. I like the part when you say, the reason lies in the deffinition.
Therefore I dont think, that it makes much sence to talk with people, who always claim how great science is.
concavearth 3 years ago
I know I'm replying to a really old comment, but I had to.
Stars "burn" via nuclear fusion, not traditional combustion... Also, there's this wonderful thing that keeps you from floating off into space. It's called "gravity."
Please pick up an elementary science text book and actually read it.
Kaiysith 3 years ago
Wow...your stupidity blows me away.
mastermorality09 3 years ago
A lot about science isn't fully discovered yet, and there is still a lot more to be known. But each wrong or incomplete discovery leads us a step closer to the truth. (Jules Verne)
chiejohinna 3 years ago
I am sorry but I find the lady to be very boring..bla bla bla. I like the idea and approve it but the video could have been more interesting!
greenleaf81 3 years ago
This woman is the most boring person I've ever
listened to.
rawsuperfood 4 years ago
A scientist arguing semantics. Who'd have thunk it. I believe W00T just got added to the dictionary. I believe science is a helpful method. I believe scientists are just as deluded as everyone else.
dQuarters 4 years ago
this lady is a real moron. Belief in scientific "facts" is exactly how it works. No one "has" to believe in it.
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
why so few views for such an important statement. well done.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
My name is Minister Mustafaa Abdulhaq Abdallah. I am the minister for the 3rd Church of Jerusalem House of Prayer Temple of God. The God that I serve and love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength is Truth. Truth is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. I now welcome you as a new member of my religion. No Poo. God bless.
ministerabdallah 4 years ago
More or less, "Belief in science" means one trusts in the tried and true methodologies of science to find objective fact of a yet unknown state or quality of the natural world. Saying one "believes in science" makes perfect sense, it's part of our language. It only stops making sense when you fixate on particulars and convince yourself it makes no sense.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
her pt is that belief in science is sloppy language. On places trust in a methodology for providing most reliable predictions
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
It's not sloppy at all. It's like saying one believes in gravity. It's always worked in the past, and one can always assume it will continue working just has it has without changing.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
It is sloppy to use a word that the religious can latch on to claiming that those that theorize, model and act on the basis of best [testable] hypothesis are just another faith. Just like them. There is something fundamentally different here.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
Sloppy, as in grammatically incorrect? Or sloppy as in, (as you believe) the religious zealots can use it as fodder?
SpazzDog 4 years ago
There can be no 'grammatical' error here, only *semantic*. Hence my pt is that a distinction in methodology can & should be made clear with clear use of language, particularly as the distinction removes the risk of having science called an 'opposing religion' by deists.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
Semantics, sure. Ok, so now we're left with... what? Atheists so entrenched in logic that they make youtube videos about such inane drivel as the use of the word "believe" in the context of science? And I believe you're thinking of theists and not deists. Deists are totally different.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
Applies to BOTH of d&t, though more pointedly to the theists.
Drivel, you keep coming back to this one?
The distinction is a fundamental difference between the those of belief and those of method, hence not drivel.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
One can have a belief in a methodology - as in, a belief in its efficacy as a tool of unlocking the secrets of the Universe. Because, as we both know, there are those who do not.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
my pt is to make a distinction in the basis of decision making. Increase the contrast.I think it will reflect badly on those of faith.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
I think it's just an elitist thing. You're too good to have anything to do with people that dabble with such things as "belief".
SpazzDog 4 years ago
If in an argument it is a good idea to understand the differences in the positions in order to be effective eventually..This is one.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
Let me understand, you want to defer using the word "belief," even though I showed that it's grammatically correct, so theists wont abuse that use of language?
SpazzDog 4 years ago
yes
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
So each time theists abuse a certain word, atheists need to change their choice of language?
SpazzDog 4 years ago
Yes, oddly the purpose of language is to make clear, to distinguish, to convince.
Oh, and I thought you had learned that 'grammatically' was the lowest form of compliance. All sorts of nonsense is grammatically correct without any logical content.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
Okay, so you want to restrict your use of language to the whims of delusional theists who believe in an imaginary friend in the sky. Gotcha.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
I want to talk to people. If they did not have a bad influence on world peace and welfare then f-them, but they are dangerous folk in their naive form.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
I believe that, too.
SpazzDog 4 years ago
On matters like global warming, drugs, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, cloning etc., etc, people still need to be active in listening to bodies of Science. Usually, there will be 2 groups that would debate these issues through the use of Science. Now, from the evidence provided by each group, you need to decide who convinced you to "believe" them and why.
HumaneScience 4 years ago
I agree with you on these things and I would include many others in to your list. Drugs are a perfect example of what I am talking about. A company does the Science to ensure a product is safe. When you put that pill in you mouth you are trusting them that it is. I am not suggesting that the world should come to a halt.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
Yes, but the reason you need to "believe" these conflicting explanations (Drugs, Global Warming, etc) is because they involve *politics* along with their science.
The scientific *METHOD*, however, demands no faith whatsoever. It is empirical evidence.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." ~ Dan Barker
HumaneScience 4 years ago
Science is not a belief. It is a method or a tool to gain knowledge with. So, it doesn't make sense when someone says, "I believe in Science", as he or she would say, "I believe in the Paranormal, Supernatural, Superstition, Pseudoscience, Spiritual, Religion and other Beliefs."
HumaneScience 4 years ago
There is a difference between a "discovery" and Science. You can either "believe" or not "believe" a "discovery". If you're skeptical of a certain "discovery" that was discovered by a certain group or individual through the use of Science, you still need to use Science to validate that "discovery".
HumaneScience 4 years ago
You can't use any other method or tool than Science for authenticity. You still need prove or disapprove a "discovery" with the use of Science. Again, people will either "believe" or "disbelieve" YOUR "discovery" based on the level of credibility and evidence you can provide derived through the use of Science.
HumaneScience 4 years ago
Giving lame excuses like people don't know enough or don't have enough time to validate the integrity of knowledge obtained through the Scientific method is unacceptable. If people can have the time to spend with the Paranormal, Supernatural, Superstition, Pseudoscience, Spiritual, Religion and other Beliefs, it would be more useful if they use this time with the study of Science instead, before getting involved in matters of such beliefs and/or faith.
HumaneScience 4 years ago
My point wasn't that people shouldn't test science. My point was that they don't for a variety of reasons. They don't know all the facts for themselves. In that, if they trust the theory is true they have faith in it. They also must have faith in the people performing the experiment.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
So, one more time, Science is not a belief. It is a method or a tool to gain knowledge with.
HumaneScience 4 years ago
Only if you have an unlimited amount of time but "science" doesn't even say that. I think they say at the most it is 12 billion years. In addition, statistically (in science) there is a point when something is said to be impossible
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
... read, please... please please pretty please. Read about the science you're so quick to dismiss. Your claims are not it.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I have read about both sides. Have you? When you say "creationist". They are not saying that horses or humans haven't changed. They are say that one species didn't evolve from another. That cow didn't evolve from a whale and so on. (I saw or read that one somewhere).
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
Yes, I have, there's nothing to read in Creationistland, they ignore facts, being unfair in giving out logical fallacies and below-the-belt attacks, and pure flat-out LIE to people.
Saying 'there are not proofs!' when the proofs are overflowing is a lie. It's not "misunderstanding", and it's not "misinterpreting", it's a brute, cowardish lie.
Cow WOULDN'T evolve from whale, as they are both DIFFERENT BRANCHES.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
sorry they said that they evolved from a cow-like animal that is very very close in the evolutionary chain to a cow. My bad.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
I think the premise of this video is dishonest. Meaning I don't think anyone would say 1 + 1 = 2 requires faith. I would say that if you believe DNA exists you are taking it on faith that it does. Most people do not have the tools or the ability to view the double helix. If you put this in comparison to the way they have taught the atom in the past. (Now they are saying Electrons don't actually rotate. They vibrate.)
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
You should read more comments. I get these a lot, otherwise I wouldn't be DOING this video.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
mooeypoo, What do you mean by your last post
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
AH - finally a video that explains this to ppl! (^-^) Lately I've noticed some videos and comments around in which ppl continue to claim that science is a religion because it requires faith...(O.o) In the mean time they sit there at their fully garnished quadcores debating this via satelite internet... ;p
SuperiorMind 4 years ago
nice! i have come across some people who equate actual science with God and belief and pseudo-science.
srini208 4 years ago
Holy pedantic semantic Batman!
pariskillton 4 years ago
Yeah.
Maybe I am wrong, but this video assumes those are the correct definitions of 'belief.' Which are the correct definitions? Because according to Merriam-Webster a belief is also...
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Which would nullify the point of this video.
metaltermite 4 years ago
And maybe I missed the point of this video entirely. If I did, I apologize. :/
metaltermite 4 years ago
That's not a good definition, it rules out false, religious and any kind of unsubstantiated beliefs. You can ditch the part after "especially" and that would be a more accurate definition. Consider this: you can hold the belief that earth is flat because you don't have evidence otherwise or any knowledge at all about the shape of the earth.
claschxtreme 4 years ago
And yet that is still a fallacious belief... you CAN hold that belief, but it's not the same as knowledge, is it?
Belief is not knowing..
I missed your point, i think?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
exactly, ow i agree with you totally. I was only commenting on the Merriam-Webster definition given by metaltermite.
claschxtreme 4 years ago
Ah, okay, I missed that.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Very, very , very nice video.
mdlima6 4 years ago
I've struck gold! Check out 'Emotional Stone's 2 comments on Easy Bake Lovin' - Ep. 2. Because I thought it would be funny to put the word 'diarrhoea' under the movie (this is categorically not true).
EmotionalStone 4 years ago
Semantics, nothing more. By picking on the word "belief" you skip over the real point people are trying to make, which is obvious. They hold the facts of science as true while still believing in some things which have not or cannot be proven true or false. Those saying they "believe" in science and religion know that science is factual. Oh, and on a quantum level, science does require belief.
JTonyArts 4 years ago
no thats not true. concerned quantuum physics you may believe in the -interpretation- of the results but it doesn't require believe as you embody it. what I mean is lets say I believe in Schrödingers interpretations or whatever - when new facts come up that state this interpretation was wrong, then I will have to refuse my believes and I will have no problems with that.
BUT there will never be such a thing like a contrary evidence for God.
good video btw.
Fensterplaetzchen 4 years ago
to defend your first 2 sentences a bit on the other hand I have to say wouln'd judge anyone who says "I believe in sciece" too, because language isn't correct as mathematics and I would also state 'I believe in science' just to express that I'm not a person who is blind for physical explenations because of religion. I mean nobody talks from a dictionary :)
Fensterplaetzchen 4 years ago
Oh, well, of course that I'm not against the General sentence "I believe in Science" or the general "I believe" statement. I am well aware that not everyone who say it follow the type I introduced in the video. I am simply against creationists using this "I believe in Science" statement to show how "empathic" they are while rejecting proven facts.. Hope that explains it better.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
What "proven facts" are you referring to? I mean I am not sure what a creationist would need to reject?
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
Well. Apparently, the reject everything that doesn't fit their dogma; that includes anything related to evolution ("THERE IS A MISSING LINK!! I don't care you show me proof against it, there still IS A MISSING LINK!!"), cosmology ("The sun may be shrinking! ya! It just may!" or my personal favorite "comets are too fragile.. they melt within a few years so the universe cannot be millions of years old")... So it doesn't take long. They reject it all.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Isn't that faith, belief, or whatever? Maybe not "the science" but in what you think it means. They are doing the same thing. That is a little different that rejecting "the science".
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
I actually think most evolutionist pull the same thing. There are many holes in the Theory. I mean there is a real issues with the evolution of a single human cell. They super complex. proteins need to be in a certain order. The double helix needs to be attached at the end. I mean crazy complex. I don't see why we wouldn't question the idea that it just happened by chance.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
What you're specifying are not holes. There *is not issue* with the human cell. We can explain how cells differ and develop in different species. The double helix..? I don't understand what you mean by that.. As to the complexity -- fallacy from ignorance; the fact *you* don't understand how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work this way, or that other people don't understand how it works.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Well, show me the experiment of the natural spontaneous development of life. "Evolution" would claim that cells evolved. How is something you can't prove fact. It isn't. you have to take what you observe and make theories about it. Evolution in context of the missing link is a theory. At best you can support selective mutation as a fact.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
Actually, that wasn't experimental. Again, please read about science. There are experiments about changes in genes, observations that support it, fossils that support it to the tiny step (check out the horse evolution, for example).
Your claims are not quite science, they're strawmen. Read about evolution; it's quite hard to explain everything from scratch in a 500-char limit box.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I know what science is. My point isn't that everything is bad and untrue when it comes to fact. But, even in this post you are referring to supporting a theory. What tiny step. They don't "know" "can't test". They hypothesize and come up with a theory. Some theory's become accepted. That doesn't make them fact.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
The difference between creationism and science is more than just facts, it's debate-tactics and thought-methods. Creationists are dogmatic, science is rational empirical evidence.
Do what you will with the evidence, science is the one that collects them, while creationism brutally crushes them so that they won't have to part from their comfortable dogma.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Funny you seem to be so hung up on creationist being wrong. I mean you talk about dogma. I see you have so much "Faith" in the science community. Faith in men collecting facts and making conclusions. The fact is that the reason science works at all is because we continually prove those conclusions to be wrong.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
I'm "set" because I did the research. Did you? Creationism *IS* wrong, according to *ALL* science, period.
I'm not talking out of Dogma, I'm talking out of research, science, empirical evidence and rational thinking.
Do you know what those are? I am not sure, if you claim creationism is right. You either ignore evidence, or you don't know of 'em.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Below is Webster's dictionary entry for empirical evidence. Given people have never directly observed evolution it is an indirect conclusion.
1. originating in or based on observation or experience.
2.relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3.capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
Things people use to support their "THEORY" is evidence. The THEORY itself their opinion/best guess not gospel.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
To answer your question.... I believe in a creator. More specifically the God of the Bible. Did God cause animals to evolve? I don't know. Did he zap them here? I don't know. If he is God then he could have but I do not claim to have evidence of it. And if it is true it doesn't matter what men think. I think that dogma goes both ways and that it shouldn't only be applied to the Christians or Creationists. Evolutionists are as human as anyone else and have the same tendencies toward dogma.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
The whole point of this video was to refute the unsupportable claim that science is dogmatic & it has succeeded in doing so. Every scientific breakthrough, including Darwin, is proof positive that science changes when presented with new evidence. If no evidence can be provided to prove the existence of any god, science cannot ethically support the claim. Though if you wish to believe in something for no good reason, you're welcome to do so.
mjr256 4 years ago
No.
Science is empirical evidence based on observation. There is nothing to do with faith or belief in it. If you don't believe an observational fact is true (and you are ENCOURAGED, in science, to doubt it) you can devise a repeated test to witness it yourself.
That's how revelations happen in Science. NOTHING to do with belief, let alone dogmatic one.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
If I don't "doubt it" I must "believe it"
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
... huh?
Okay, science ENCOURAGE doubting. That's the POINT of empirical evidence and experimentation.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
The last bit about chance is just pure strawman. Evolution doesn't speak of chance. Or random. Read some more about it, you'll see.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
How come this has jumped from methodology to specifics?
Colston 4 years ago
Some thoughts...
All science is seen as a cohesive generator of facts through evidence and this must be accepted or a person is irrational... even if it is for example theoretical physics...
A small minority of "believers" who claim that there is material evidence for God are accepted by people arguing against belief as the spokespersons for a much larger majority who don't...
Colston 4 years ago
Mooeypoo - you got the wrong idea - I'm not contesting that science is logical and bases its ideas on verifiable fact etc., but what I am saying is that your average Joe swallows up everything "scientists" tell them without actually verifying the facts themselves. So, essentially, I'm agreeing with you.
LewisScotland 4 years ago
Unlike religion, people don't take science by faith. Science unlike religion is based on facts. The goes with George Washington. People believe in George Washington by historical facts by people who lived during his lifetime not by faith. mathematics are also based on facts not faith.
connerjd 4 years ago
Religion is based on the same kind of facts in terms of people's accounts of being there when it hhppened...
Colston 4 years ago
No, that's not quite true. Having a fact in the form of a fossil link found in multiple areas in the world is not the "same kind" as people accounts. Think about a murder trial: finding a bloody knife with the perp's finger prints and a film of him committing the murder is not the same value in court as someone saying he saw the crime.
Not to mention the fact that some of these eyewitness accounts are doubtful, and don't fit one another.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Yeah the fossil thing is different although open to interpretation, depending on confidence in the method of aging such evidence... and I don't know enough to be able to choose between the evolutionary or creationist paradigm as far as that is concerned... and numbers of scientists on either side don't swing it for me! Think flat earth.
Colston 4 years ago
People who wrote about Jesus didn't live during his time. People didn't write about him until after he was dead.
connerjd 4 years ago
I referred to George Washington and Jesus. As there are contradictions in sports reports of a match from the day before I don't feel that contradictions are enough to say that didn't happen. Red Bulls played LA Galaxy yesterday no matter what... ;-)
Colston 4 years ago
FAO connerjd (38 seconds ago) Marked as spam
People who wrote about Jesus didn't live during his time. People didn't write about him until after he was dead.
Like an obituary??? As far as I am aware those people were alive when he was though... or at least one or two of them.
Colston 4 years ago
Interesting. So you take an obituary, written 2000 years ago, as valid proof?
"He was a smart man, kind and gentle".. uhh.. would you take this testimony as 100% true, knowing it probably came from close family? I wouldn't.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I don't see it as any different than the George Washington material... whether I accept either is not the issue. I am far too skeptical to do that...
Colston 4 years ago
You need to do more research in this area and not the christian only area where they talk about this. The people who wrote about him considered him to just be a legend. 1st century Ad Palestine has no historical records of Jesus.
connerjd 4 years ago
Josephus, Tacitus... and why are the writings of the apostles not held as historical records? Does that mean that Washington's family members, colleagues, friends and general people who have an interest in this "great president" will be removed from the historical record?
Colston 4 years ago
People who wrote about Washington and the other founding fathers were actually around during their lifetimes. People are not even sure who wrote some parts of the bible. These writers didn't actually believe that they were writing about a historical person. There are many people who could have been Jesus.
connerjd 4 years ago
Still in methodological terms one is no better than the other... my point. You are arguing specifics and from your belief that those sources for Washington were better. Were you there to ask? No. So both positions rely on faith of sorts...
Colston 4 years ago
None of us were there, including yourself. The sources about Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin are more accurate. Nobody says that they believe in the founding fathers based on faith. The churches that I attend said to believe in Jesus by faith, they didn't use faith for anyone else. No one uses faith to believe in Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Many christians don't find it necessary to do historical research on the bible and Jesus.
connerjd 4 years ago
Absolutely not... why do historical research for something that is as real to them as breathing? Jesus is a living reality for some believers... not those that are forced I'll grant you... but for those you do what the Bible asks and get the results it promises... no research or confirmation necessary.
Colston 4 years ago
The problem is Jesus isn't real to everyone. Some people believe that he was just a human. The pagans believe that their gods are real. The christians will say that there is no historical evidence for their Gods. Christians don't believe in the Koran and Book of Mormons. Muslims and Mormons believe their books to be historical without research and that they should be obeyed.
connerjd 4 years ago
So how does that effect someone with the living experience of a real Jesus? I can't see that it does... because they are not playing the rational/logical game. They have personal experience of healing, abundance, freedom from guilt and a host of wonderful friends and strong families.
Colston 4 years ago
The jesus thing is just an emotional high. These TV evangelists never show actual proof of a supernatural healing. Abundance comes from hard work. Freedom from guilt comes from being a good human. Non-believers have wonderful friends and strong families. People use ration and logic in every area of their lives except their religion. People bend and change the rules for their religion.
connerjd 4 years ago
"Non-believers have wonderful friends and strong families."
See how you switch the argument... we weren't talking about non-believers but how believers don't need to figure out material evdience for Jesus.
I'm sure you can provide evdience for your emotional high thesis?
I have witnessed supernatural healing... so I have a first hand account. I know that outside of law courts this kind of eye witness testimony is not acceptable... lol
Colston 4 years ago
I didn't switch the argument. I am telling the truth. I mention non-believers because christians usually believe non-believers can't be happy. I don't let my emotions get in the way of my rational thinking. People once worshipped Saturn without material evidence, now most people believe that Saturn is just a myth. Until I see evidence, I will not believe in supernatural healings. I am not going to take someone's word for it which is what christians usually do.
connerjd 4 years ago
Sometimes... oftentimes they practice openmindedness until they are convinced, such conviction coming through personal experience of either receipt of the promises of belief or a supernatural experience...
Colston 4 years ago
Well some of the "12 disciples" wrote the new testament. Of course some deny that however. There is always someone to dispute anything. The scriptures were certainly writen by someone that was alive while christ was alive.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
Mooeypoo,
Actually some scientist does have to tell us when evidence "shows us".
I don't receive any time shares for Hubble or rent a lab off of the accelerator at Argonne. I have to take some guys or gals word for it.
Most scientists agree on scientific facts.
It is in the underlining implications they find conflict where further fact finding must take place.
I believe that Newton and Einstein believed in gravity—but each had a different kind in mind.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Example 1:
Man: God created the world.
Boy: How do you know?
Man: The Bible says so.
Example 2:
Man: The world came about by chance.
Boy: How do you know?
Man: Scientists say so.
LewisScotland 4 years ago
Strawman and inaccurate.
Strawman #1: Science does NOT claim that the world came about "by chance".
Strawman #2: Scientists do not "say so", the EVIDENCE show us.
Nice idea - but inaccurate and misleading.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Did you watch this video??
xplosive58 4 years ago
I <3 science. <3 the video. :)
Are you or do you like philosophy? [I would first like to understand whether the pious or holy is beloved of the gods because is holy or holy because it is beloved of the gods?]
mtdewguy 4 years ago
Nice intro.
julounin 4 years ago
What i'm trying to say is, show me your fat tits.
OGTronn 4 years ago
And what I'm trying to say is that you're lack of intelligence to invent valid arguments is shown to such far extents, that I've actually considered not to report you. Agh.. the power of pitty.
Pitty lost, btw. So did your arguments, apparently.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Mooeypoo,
Stop feeding the trolls dear. You are a bit better than that.
But more importantly, to what end does a vendetta against religion serve? Not so much this particular video--largely an exercise in semantics that I am afraid you would lose to a linguist.
Attacking religion will not replace man's innate desire for identity, purpose. Until you can find a suitable replacement for "purpose" I am afraid you are chasing your tail.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Hey Tool, I believe in evolution. Science is Factual.
But by people who are religious, Evolution is Debatable. So your standpoint is fucking redundant. Fatty.
OGTronn 4 years ago
.... other than your pleasantries... whaaaat?? I have no idea what it is you're trying to say. Explain, or save us the insults.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Gravity is really not understood by science, though no one would deny the fact gravity exists and some attributes are described correctly, it's warping around mass and bending of space for example, but gravity is mistakenly thought to be an attribute of matter.. Gravity is a pushing together of matter, a universal pressure (steady state acceleration) and not a pull, commonly taught as fact.
Muzaloth 4 years ago
You are great at defending your arguments.
xplosive58 4 years ago
Great video mooe.
pdoeman 4 years ago
Perfect explanation! (or as good as it gets :))
I'll enjoy watching your other vids if they're anything like this!
TheCuriousSkeptic 4 years ago
Another great contribution by the one and only mooeypoo. The more videos you post, the more knowledge that gets spread to the world. You're on the brink of genius girl, keep it up; so I can keep learning!
psychoholiday 4 years ago
What's a better way to put it then "I believe in Science"?
dechha1981 4 years ago
"I believe science"
psychoholiday 4 years ago
I always find it so bad that people even need this stuff explained to them..
1ukia 4 years ago
Good explanation. That's why I stand on faith alone. I would also add that Torah study can also be a logical process. Has not our scientific discovery that the earth revolves around the sun lead us to reinterpret the scriptures? Even the Rabbinic traditions vary and are open to change. Faith is a process just as much as the scientific method and the two intersect at times.
TruthCeeker333 4 years ago
I think you too quickly discarded the various definitions of belief. When people say, "I believe in science", I think of belief in the sense of the 3rd definition you went over; Confidence, faith, trust. And "science", in this case, is probably refering to the method, since science is not a single entity. We all have confidence, faith, trust (ie. belief) that science is the best method for understanding the physical world around us.
JustOneEarth 4 years ago
Additionally, argueing over semantics really seems a waste of time. So long as people aren't building shrines to science and sacraficing motherboards to appease it for favors, we can all assume that when they use the word "belief", it's simply for lack of a better word to use to express such confidence and trust. The fact that people may also have "belief" in some irrational things doesn't necessarily mean that because science is by definition rational, one may not have belief in it.
JustOneEarth 4 years ago
JustOneEarth I have to agree with you on this, it's just splitting hairs.. all this concern over semantics is best left to the grammer queens.. anyway, loved your comment about sacrificing motherboards..
Muzaloth 4 years ago
Seriously though, one may take a poetic approach to, "belief in science" as a methodology to save or preserve the earth, humanity, etc.
Science is a way of life as much as a methodology.
There is a reverence for the method.
It would have to be, given that the number of scientific facts can be counted on one hand.
Poo, I love your work. I really do. But its a right brain thing.
As in Sting, "lost his faith in science". etc..
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Thats a bunch of poo.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
First of all, mathematics is not a science in the modern usage of the term. Math is not established empirically, the rest of science is.
Second of all, I think you're misunderstanding people--when they say that they do not believe in science, they are merely espousing doubts as to the validity of claims established through science. One can do this in various ways--one such way is the humean way--simply deny necessary connection between cause and effect and science is shot.
NathanZimmerman 4 years ago
I think I disagree with part of this. Dictionarydot com is only one source of definitions. From Merriam- Webster, "3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
even that: "Especially when.." not "dependant on".
mooeypoo 4 years ago
btw, if 1+1=2 is tautological because it's "repeating" the same thing twice, would that mean 2+1=3 isn't and 2+2=4 is? If it does, then it's .. uhh.. just the form of the language, isn't it? It doesn't make it "not true" just an "audible observation" (of sorts) that you just used the same 'word' twice. No?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
1+1=2 is tautological only in the form that is called redundant, it is not an actual tautology... I was trying to say that and that you were right, except what suprfin was describing was the argument form, not the truth of the statement. Ughh, I've added confusion with my efforts. 1+1=2 is also tautologous logically, but that is different than the redundant factor which only applies to the form of the proposition itself and not the truth of the proposition.
gklr 4 years ago
Ah ha. Okay I'm completely confused about tautology now.
:P That's a great debate, btw.. most interesting one by far that I've had in YT in a long long while. Please don't let my confusion stop you, hehe.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I am on my way out with tons to do, but be sure I will return to this. :)
gklr 4 years ago
Awesome Video, I like your style
FightingAtheist 4 years ago
The bible said that the earth was round first, the people tried to disprove this first but the bible siad it all along. The bible uses math. So to say that belief is not for math, that's just dumb.
Blazeblade1313 4 years ago
Ah, no, it didn't twice. First, it wasn't the first by a long shot, and second, it did NOT say that. Galileo was almost killed for "refuting" the bible's "flat earth" myth.
The pope only apologized a few years ago.
If you want to not believe 1+1=2, or that you do not need objective facts to achieve progress, I wish you good luck in life.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
The bible doesn't claim a flat earth. There is some imagery that if you took literally you could make that claim. "Ends of the earth" "Four corners" stuff like that. Those are all in Job. I think the bible uses alot of word pictures to express things. It called jesus the foundation. I don't think they meant he is made of rock or something.
hadajobonce11 4 years ago
The "four corners" also appears in Revelation. The horsemen are said to come from the four corners of the earth.
mjr256 4 years ago
btw, the bible did NOT use math.. if you are refering to the "bible code", I can find "god does not exist" and "ha ha I am god and you are all suckers" in a matter of minutes in the bible. It proves n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
What about "1 Kings 7:23-26" ? They apparently demonstrate that PI = 3.0 in that verse. What does the Torah have to say on the matter? ;)
websnarf 4 years ago
I believe you're great! and...<i> your vid gets 5 stars </i> (but you can't put them in a basket!)
Elaina43 4 years ago
Thanks, Elaina! hey, can I boil them and eat them?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
DOH! (Hello! They're not <i>real</i>.) Silly rabbit.
Elaina43 4 years ago
Bah, so is the Square Root of 2. That never stopped mathematicians.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
LMAO!!!
Elaina43 4 years ago
Libelous! The square root of 2 is *IRRATIONAL*. You are thinking of the square root of -1. :)
websnarf 4 years ago
I do believe you just made the case for me, you math nerd you!
Math is weird.
QED.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
The scientific method is not science per se. Science is cause and effect. The scientific method as it implies is the method of science. Btw conclusions are not subjective, a conclusion can be wrong, or right if it is honest.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
I didn't say conclusions are subjective, I said conclusions are not the scientific method, the METHOD to reach them is the scientific method, which is the opposite of subjective :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
yeah but at least to my understanding you made conclusions sound a bit ambigous, as if a certain conclusion is never on the point.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
My point was that if you argue about something (or "doubt" or "believe" something) it would be the conclusion itself. You may doubt conclusions, that's actually part OF science; you can doubt gravity, for example, but as long as you find no particular flaw in the conclusion, it's not going anywhere to doubt it. Progress comes from people who doubt conclusions and try to double check them.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
However, doubting the scientific method itself is stupid; the scientific method basically sets the ground to collecting objective facts.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Trying to put together above comment and your previous about "blind faith" in science. I cannot possibly be well read on all areas of science. I have evidence that the scientific method and science community finds truth in how things work. So I have "faith" in them. Not blind faith though
loveisallneed 4 years ago
You define faith differently than the "belief" of a religious man in science.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
You may have faith in a community but you're not being scientific nonetheless, since science is about comprehension, not belief, and you don't need to be well read in all areas of science to check the reasoning and veracity of a claim, you just need your brain.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
btw just because a person is right about something doesn't mean s/he may be right about everything else, because the information is still unverified. In logics that's the fallacy called "appeal to authority" and that's exactly the same fallacy religious people rely on. Belief is false knowledge.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
God is an appeal to authority, but confidence in an expert would be different I think. I am confident my doctor can diagnose my illness better than a priest. He could still be wrong, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would not call him infallible, though. The medical community would increase the confidence, more experts, etc.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
You are confident with REASON with your doctor - or I would hope so - you have proof that his methods work, you know that he has a specific method to work by, you know that the field of medicine is a reliable one. If, for instance, you did not know any of these, or, for another instance, your doctor started telling you about weird experimental drugs that are pseudoscientific and have no concrete proof of results, then you would probably STOP having confidence in him.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
As for me, in my best interest I would want to know what the doctor is doing to me and even look for second opinions since obviously I'd be alot closer to the best treatment possible. lol but I would look for a priest to pray for me.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
Exactly. Skepticism is never wrong, imho, if done correctly. That's what I meant by being skeptic of the "conclusion" -- requesting a second opinion means that you trust the METHOD of medicine, but may be skeptical of the specific conclusion by a specific doctor(s). If you do this using logic and objective proof hunt, your odds of getting the best treatments are increasing significantly.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
yeah, it's indeed very healthy to see if there's something wrong with a conclusion. Check this funny example why conclusions have to be looked upon carefully - The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the child's handwriting. Does having big feet make it easier to write? No, it means the child is older :P
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
and here I thought man's hand size has to do with.. something else.
Damnit, man, you ruined the best myth ever.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
the waight of air counts , but what thats got too do with facts (do tree fell gravity and if they do that would be nirves system )
STRESSED999 4 years ago
mooeypoo is a fucking moron
mrtdot 4 years ago
She comes off more intelligent than you have with your stupid comment.
Homer177 4 years ago
huh?
blaster21996 4 years ago
for example The atomic theory, which is theory, meaning that it is not factual, but theoretical. Yet all knowledge of natural material, i.e. the periodic table, and the way protons,neutrons, and electrons
are arrange is simple conjecture. Remember science is only one way of looking at things. To imply observation or using science is the only way to understand things is untrue, from my perspective.
Anentity 4 years ago