*quack* I posted a similar comment elsewhere, and this subject inspired my screen name.
You cannot see a particle in a duck and still see a duck. Yet these minuscule particles together cause the image of a duck to appear at some distance. In this way, should we consider ourselves and the universe to be as particles in a great "duck"? But how would we know? How could we see such a thing and still be a part of it at the same time?
ablheza, I wish to recommend reading this article by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal: "Defense of a Modest Scientific Realism". Just Google it and the link should come right up for you. Whether you read it or not is, of course, up to you. I'm just mentioning it to you.
It seems like you don't even understand how science operates. The scientific process involves hypotheses - which are not axioms - and then data gathering which is for the purpose of testing these hypotheses. If the evidence supports a hypothesis, then it becomes the basis for further investigation. But if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then it is thrown out and new hypotheses are tried. Belief in religious doctrine - such as the Trinity - is nothing like this in any way.
But first, an axiom... is or not is a valid concept that is used in science?. If it is, and the definition of axiom is that it is a fact that does not require proof or demostration, clearly not everything is supported by "evidence".
Hypothesis are not axioms, but like everything they are constructed upon them. :)
Here you're playing on two different meanings of the words "work for you." In science, "work for you" refers to, first, being testable, and, second, passing the tests. This is according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. In religion, "work for you" does not mean anything like that but is purely subjective according to personal preferences.
ablheza, you wrote, "My point is that at last 'according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data' is no more than another personal preference!" The problem you're having is that it is not just a "personal preference." For example, it is an objective fact that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. That's not just a personal preference, and the process of learning it and knowing it (scientific investigation) is not merely a personal preference.
You were saying that "testability according to objective criteria" and "personal preference" are not the same. I just pointed that the need to test things according to objective criteria is just another personal preference :). You can live without that and be happy :). Also the fiabilty of the "objective criteria" is very doubtfull, for centuries the flat earth was an objective criteria, all the main physics were convinced that by the year 1900 everything would be discovered on their field.
ablheza - testing things according to objective criteria is not just a personal preference. I realize you would love for it to be so, but living in the real world doesn't work like that. For example, crimes are investigated and solved in this way (scientifically). You may have a personal preference to make up answers for criminal cases in nonrational ways, and your answers simply won't be correct (except in case of rare accident). Science works because it achieves answers that are correct.
Great mistake!... Science works because it achieves answers that work... at least for a while, AND NOTHING MORE!!. That is the core of all that I was trying you to see with my comments. Think about that for a while.
"And nothing more." That misrepresents science. There are a broad range of ideas in science, with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty. Empirical investigation and analysis is fallible and incomplete. Interesting topic, but it's a change of subject. You've argued that science is based on faith just like religious beliefs are based on faith, pretending that science is somehow not fundamentally different from religious faith, and that is incorrect. Empirical testability is one example.
You are an example... all your science confused you to empirically believe that science give you correct answers, but with a bit further analysis you know that you only have answers that work. Is your faith in science what leads you to that mistake :)
So I guess that means the earth doesn't *really* orbit the sun after all. That's merely "what works." Sorry, ablheza, but I'm not buying it.
I notice you also playing a word game with your use of the word "faith" (again). I have faith in science *because* it's based on, among other things, testability and empirical evidence and logical analysis. That is nothing like religious faith, and you know it.
Remember that the model that worked for science for a long, long time was earth centric. A real scientist today only would feel capable of saying that "as far as the evidence shows now, it´s very probably that the earth orbits the sun", I don´t know if it really does... do you? :)
ablheza, geocentrism did indeed hold sway in science for a long time. (I've studied some of the ancient arguments myself, which were very good.) Then people invented telescopes and the theory of gravity. I would never deny that science is certainly imperfect. Science is an empirically-based process of inquiry (unlike faith-based religious belief), and thus must always be open to additional *relevant* empirical data. But this proves how science is different from religion, not the same.
About your flat earth comments... Historically, people came to understand that the earth was not flat as a scientific approach to investigating the real world began to be developed over 2,000 years ago (notably, in Greek society). So that's an achievement of mathematical and scientific development. So, in fact, it's a good example of why your "everything, even science, is just personal preference" argument is false. Misrepresentation doesn't help your argument in in the least.
ablheza, you wrote, "My point is that at last 'according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data' is no more than another personal preference!"
You also wrote, "the need to test things according to objective criteria is just another personal preference."
Do you understand that in any of those afirmations I used the word science?. What I mentioned on those affirmation is not "science", just a part of it. But also you can say that in spite that science is not based on personal preferences, it´s just a personal preference to apply it :)
That's right, you were referring to a fundamental aspect of science. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It isn't just personal preference. It isn't science if there isn't empirical testability, so it isn't merely "personal preference" to apply it. That's my point.
The choice of ruling your life by science is a personal preference... as good as any other that works :). I´m not discussing your point, just going a little bit farther :)
ablheza, you wrote, "The choice of ruling your life by science is a personal preference..." You're mixing up ontological and epistemological with subjective considerations. These are not the same thing. It is incorrect to ignore the distinctions. This is my point.
ablheza, I fully understand that people who buy into religious faith are desperate to make it appear that science is not fundamentally different from religious belief in order to try to grant more credibility for their faith. But they really are fundamentally different, so it cannot work. Testability is one of the hallmarks of the scientific approach, whereas religious faith is simply not testable.
Religious faith is NOT being tested according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. Indeed, it is impossible even in principle to test religious doctrines according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. Religious beliefs are simply not testable, in reference to the scientific criterion of testability. This is my point.
ablheza, please explain how you could use the scientific criterion of testability on the religious doctrine of the Trinity. What scientific investigation/research could you perform in order to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data? Please explain.
ablheza, my question was rhetorical, for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that religious faith and science are fundamentally different. The testability criterion is one example of this (a very important example). And apparently we agree that religious doctrine is not testable.
Now, what are these elements of science that are not testable? That are based merely on the same kind of faith as religious faith and that are not subject to empirical testing or rational analysis?
Any axiom. And consider also that every religious faith is being empiricaly tested on daily basis, and subject to the most "qualified" rational analysis... or you found any believer that doesn´t give reasons and experiences (testimony) for what he believes?. Yeah, I know... you don´t agree with those reasons and don´t share the experinces, but that is not reason enough to make them wrong or invalid "per se" :)
ablheza, your position on this point is becoming incoherent. Sometimes you claim religious faith is empirically testable, yet other times you agree with me that it isn't. In fact, religious faith is NOT being empirically tested on a daily basis, because religious faith cannot be scientifically tested even in principle. So now I ask you again: What scientific investigation/research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
My position is coherent (as any other one) referred to the set of elements I´m considering. I said that religious faith is empirically testable... by believers :). Never said that it could be scientifically tested, those are different things :).
ablheza, religious faith is empirically testable. I ask you again: What scientific investigation/research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
I wrote, "ablheza, religious faith is empirically testable." I left out the word "not." I hope it's obvious that was an unintentional typing error, since I've previously stated repeatedly that religious faith is not empirically testable. Again, if it was empirically testable, then you could empirically test the doctrine of the Trinity, for example. But you can't. It's impossible.
I see that for you "empirical" and "scientifically" are equivalent. For me they are not. Religion is empirically testable (tested by experience -I prayed,God gave me :)-), that is not the same than say that is scientifically tested (tested by the scientific method) (I pray... well, lets see what happens, you pray... lets see what happens again, he prays... can we find a generalization for what happens? :)).
Science and empirical testability are intimately, fundamentally connected. Without empirical testability, you don't have science. Religion is not empirically testable. This is the point. The more you keep trying to pretend that religious faith and faith in science are the same thing, the more we see they're not the same thing at all. And I ask you again: What scientific research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
That's funny you should bring up prayer. The claims for prayer *are* empirically testable, and scientific studies have demonstrated that prayer has zero effect, like a proposed drug that doesn't actually work. Oh, yeah, that means prayer doesn't even "work"! So it doesn't matter whether you pray to God, or Allah, or Krishna, or Isis, or, my favorite, Aphrodite, it's merely a matter of personal preference.
It works... for the prayer... and for the prayer that is the only thing that matters :). He may feel sorry that it doesn´t work for you... but you know... God acts in misterious ways!! :)
ablheza, prayer can help a person feel better emotionally, subjectively. But it does not help people physically, objectively. This is what the scientific studies show. Science and religion are fundamentally different, not the same. This is my point. If someone wishes to believe that God - or Krishna - or Isis - or Aphrodite - is working in "mysterious" ways to help him feel better he is certainly free to do so. But that is merely a subjective belief, not empirical reality.
ablheza, you keep referring to untestable axioms in science, but you never actually say what what it is that's supposed to be untestable. I've asked you about this before but you did not respond.
Anything that you call an axiom is untestable by definition, and sometimes almost "biblical" :). I referred to the definition of "point" in the video as an example of that.
Mmm... this is an old video, some subtitles were there, but the hair is not more!... at least for a while until it grow again. Summer is comming here! :)
No... I´m just saying that on the very first base of every fact we find "non demostrable assumptions" -axioms- that we choose to believe in, based on that we conclude that they help us to build a model of reality that works for us. That is exactly the same that a religious person does.
Then the model of reality (dominant paradigm) can be held as "fact" or is it still "belief" because as often happens new theories and discoveries overthrow
Well... as everything it may be a matter of choice. But if you hold things as "facts" perhaps you will be renouncing to your right to doubt and also hold you from discovering new things. Probably it will be wiser to take everything as beliefs and keep on walking on the seek of knowledge :). All revolutionary scientist treated their actual "facts" as beliefs, if not we will be still standing at the center of the universe! :)
Yes everything is basically belief and like your conclusion = respect beliefs! Often new discoveries come from trying to prove beliefs s.a. Capernicus. I've just watched your POW on arguements so enough energy on this discussion.
Science does not require faith. Science has no axioms. Science has never claimed to produce absolute knowledge, just approximations that are getting better and better. Science is open-mined, but not gullible.
ablheza, perhaps you need to take a course or read a book about scientific methodology or the philosophy of science?
Please, just lead me to those readings and I´ll check them. I´m very interested on the ones that explains that science has no axioms. About the rest, ýou should not argue with me, you should argue with the dictionary, I tried to include all the definitions in text on the video. Thanks for your comment!
So are you saying that Axioms are taken for granted if the world we live in is properly perceived? or does an Axiom have nothing to do with perception? from what you said, if im not mistaken they are taken for granted as true. So to be taken for granted, they must be universally perceived, or nearly universally perceived as true.
I repeated what the dictionary says, that an axiom "is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths"... I think that you may be right relating this with "universally perception" or at least "most commonly accepted perceptions", and of course with the fact that not everything can be "proved".
You're a smart guy- math is a very abstract & useful concept- are dogmas equivalent to axioms- perhaps to a degree- understanding ourselves/brain biology via neuroscience may answer much of why/how/what we are methinks- lack of understanding/knowledge & inability to demonstrate/prove abstract ideas will always appear mysterious/paradoxical to logic.
Does this = god exists?
Maybe it depends on how we understand ourselves eh.
Thanks! Based on the abstractions of math we construct the model of the universe where we live... so it must not be so abstract :). Axioms not only exist in math. About your last phrase, who do you prefer I quote? Protágoras or Heidegger? :)
How couldn´t that be if "a man is the measure to everything" (Protagoras). And about philosophers, Heiddegger said "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy", so he would probably agree with you on your lack of trust!! :). My opinion about "Maybe it depends on how we understand ourselves", agree! is for that that we must seek the "EVIDENCE INSIDE!!" :)
Familiar with both quotes & agree- so gave up on most philosophy years ago- decided to judge for myself- free-think if you like- glad you agree- the evidence is inside- so being honest with oneself is key- yes.
Btw, the problem is that Science is not so that we know, Science only tries to explain. That's different. Knowledge and explanation are not synonymous. For some they coincide, for others explanation is only part of knowledge. If I can "explain" why someone acted in one way and not another does not necessarily mean that I "know" that person.
I didn´t forget you... I´m starting to work on the video response... meanwhile you can probably invest your time presenting some evidence for "There is a set such that no set is a member of it" ;)
I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have evidence that there are no gods - the perfect vacuum of evidence for the existence of any gods.
Don´t worry... it´s just another thing that you believe without having the chance of presenting evidence of it! :). Hope to have your video response ready this days.
Videos watched under this account, 1. Videos watched overall, 1000+ (i usually close and open new accounts all the time). I discovered youtube over a year ago, and have since been addicted. :) This is indeed the best video out of that 1000+ I've seen. :)
I remember when I took my Intro. to Philosophy class, the professor (who was brilliant) told us that his main goal for that semester was to have us leave questioning EVERYTHING that we once thought we knew. I remember thinking how healthy it was to question, doubt and be skeptical. :)
We can look at the recent examples in quantum physics where very little can even be observed, let alone known. There is a great deal of faith in understanding concepts like string theory and multiple dimensions, but hopefully one day science will play its role and make our understanding of these things more concrete, or as concrete as we can make them.
Nice video! I finally got a chance to see it. It's interesting how faith plays a big role in knowledge. As much as science tries to distance itself from philosophy, it can't because philosophy comes before science, not the other way around. Before doing anything else, a scientist makes some assumptions about what things could possibly be like, THEN he seeks to find some "absolutes".
*quack* I posted a similar comment elsewhere, and this subject inspired my screen name.
You cannot see a particle in a duck and still see a duck. Yet these minuscule particles together cause the image of a duck to appear at some distance. In this way, should we consider ourselves and the universe to be as particles in a great "duck"? But how would we know? How could we see such a thing and still be a part of it at the same time?
DuckInAParticle 3 years ago
Haha!! you seem to be "on the right tune". The one who asks himself that question and find an answer will soon see how simple everything is :)
ablheza 3 years ago
I refuse to listen this because of the sound. I'm open to all ideas that utilize reason and rationality.
I will say though, science has no agenda. Religion does.
gumpdy 3 years ago
Nor science nor religion have agendas... people does :)
ablheza 3 years ago
Nice..very nice...Science and Religion should stop antagonizing each other and work together towards the well being of us all.
Brazdolph 4 years ago
Haha! At last you got through the ugly audio!. I will do a remake of this with better audio :)
ablheza 4 years ago
yes..I had a har time to understand it, but I think I did..and it´s not because of your accent, which is fine, but the quality of the audio..
Brazdolph 4 years ago
ablheza, I wish to recommend reading this article by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal: "Defense of a Modest Scientific Realism". Just Google it and the link should come right up for you. Whether you read it or not is, of course, up to you. I'm just mentioning it to you.
greeneto 4 years ago
I will check it. I responded to your comments 6 days ago, but somehow they are not on line!. I´ll comment again.
ablheza 4 years ago
It seems like you don't even understand how science operates. The scientific process involves hypotheses - which are not axioms - and then data gathering which is for the purpose of testing these hypotheses. If the evidence supports a hypothesis, then it becomes the basis for further investigation. But if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then it is thrown out and new hypotheses are tried. Belief in religious doctrine - such as the Trinity - is nothing like this in any way.
greeneto 4 years ago
I understand the scientific method.
But first, an axiom... is or not is a valid concept that is used in science?. If it is, and the definition of axiom is that it is a fact that does not require proof or demostration, clearly not everything is supported by "evidence".
Hypothesis are not axioms, but like everything they are constructed upon them. :)
ablheza 4 years ago
All beliefs are supported by exactly the same reason that support any hyphotesis, you are attached to them as long as they work for you.
They also are changed and discarded on the exact instant that they cease to work FOR YOU :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Here you're playing on two different meanings of the words "work for you." In science, "work for you" refers to, first, being testable, and, second, passing the tests. This is according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. In religion, "work for you" does not mean anything like that but is purely subjective according to personal preferences.
greeneto 4 years ago
Agree! but also I know that personal preferences is what we all care about most! :). And the esence of the method is the same, it works... it´s OK!
ablheza 4 years ago
Testability according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data, and personal preferences, are not the same thing. This is my point.
greeneto 4 years ago
My point is that at last "according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data" is no more than another personal preference! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, you wrote, "My point is that at last 'according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data' is no more than another personal preference!" The problem you're having is that it is not just a "personal preference." For example, it is an objective fact that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. That's not just a personal preference, and the process of learning it and knowing it (scientific investigation) is not merely a personal preference.
greeneto 4 years ago
You were saying that "testability according to objective criteria" and "personal preference" are not the same. I just pointed that the need to test things according to objective criteria is just another personal preference :). You can live without that and be happy :). Also the fiabilty of the "objective criteria" is very doubtfull, for centuries the flat earth was an objective criteria, all the main physics were convinced that by the year 1900 everything would be discovered on their field.
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza - testing things according to objective criteria is not just a personal preference. I realize you would love for it to be so, but living in the real world doesn't work like that. For example, crimes are investigated and solved in this way (scientifically). You may have a personal preference to make up answers for criminal cases in nonrational ways, and your answers simply won't be correct (except in case of rare accident). Science works because it achieves answers that are correct.
greeneto 4 years ago
Great mistake!... Science works because it achieves answers that work... at least for a while, AND NOTHING MORE!!. That is the core of all that I was trying you to see with my comments. Think about that for a while.
ablheza 4 years ago
"And nothing more." That misrepresents science. There are a broad range of ideas in science, with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty. Empirical investigation and analysis is fallible and incomplete. Interesting topic, but it's a change of subject. You've argued that science is based on faith just like religious beliefs are based on faith, pretending that science is somehow not fundamentally different from religious faith, and that is incorrect. Empirical testability is one example.
greeneto 4 years ago
You are an example... all your science confused you to empirically believe that science give you correct answers, but with a bit further analysis you know that you only have answers that work. Is your faith in science what leads you to that mistake :)
ablheza 4 years ago
So I guess that means the earth doesn't *really* orbit the sun after all. That's merely "what works." Sorry, ablheza, but I'm not buying it.
I notice you also playing a word game with your use of the word "faith" (again). I have faith in science *because* it's based on, among other things, testability and empirical evidence and logical analysis. That is nothing like religious faith, and you know it.
greeneto 4 years ago
Remember that the model that worked for science for a long, long time was earth centric. A real scientist today only would feel capable of saying that "as far as the evidence shows now, it´s very probably that the earth orbits the sun", I don´t know if it really does... do you? :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, geocentrism did indeed hold sway in science for a long time. (I've studied some of the ancient arguments myself, which were very good.) Then people invented telescopes and the theory of gravity. I would never deny that science is certainly imperfect. Science is an empirically-based process of inquiry (unlike faith-based religious belief), and thus must always be open to additional *relevant* empirical data. But this proves how science is different from religion, not the same.
greeneto 4 years ago
About your flat earth comments... Historically, people came to understand that the earth was not flat as a scientific approach to investigating the real world began to be developed over 2,000 years ago (notably, in Greek society). So that's an achievement of mathematical and scientific development. So, in fact, it's a good example of why your "everything, even science, is just personal preference" argument is false. Misrepresentation doesn't help your argument in in the least.
greeneto 4 years ago
Show me where I said that "science is just a personal preference" :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, you wrote, "My point is that at last 'according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data' is no more than another personal preference!"
You also wrote, "the need to test things according to objective criteria is just another personal preference."
greeneto 4 years ago
Do you understand that in any of those afirmations I used the word science?. What I mentioned on those affirmation is not "science", just a part of it. But also you can say that in spite that science is not based on personal preferences, it´s just a personal preference to apply it :)
ablheza 4 years ago
That's right, you were referring to a fundamental aspect of science. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It isn't just personal preference. It isn't science if there isn't empirical testability, so it isn't merely "personal preference" to apply it. That's my point.
greeneto 4 years ago
The choice of ruling your life by science is a personal preference... as good as any other that works :). I´m not discussing your point, just going a little bit farther :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, you wrote, "The choice of ruling your life by science is a personal preference..." You're mixing up ontological and epistemological with subjective considerations. These are not the same thing. It is incorrect to ignore the distinctions. This is my point.
greeneto 4 years ago
Subjective considerations is the only thing that matters... for YOU! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, I fully understand that people who buy into religious faith are desperate to make it appear that science is not fundamentally different from religious belief in order to try to grant more credibility for their faith. But they really are fundamentally different, so it cannot work. Testability is one of the hallmarks of the scientific approach, whereas religious faith is simply not testable.
greeneto 4 years ago
Again... how can you apply testability to an axiom?. Are axioms a part of science?.
Religious faith is being tested every minute... by the believers! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Religious faith is NOT being tested according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. Indeed, it is impossible even in principle to test religious doctrines according to objective criteria in comparison to empirical data. Religious beliefs are simply not testable, in reference to the scientific criterion of testability. This is my point.
greeneto 4 years ago
Agreed again. I was just mentioning that also in science are elements that are not "testable".
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, please explain how you could use the scientific criterion of testability on the religious doctrine of the Trinity. What scientific investigation/research could you perform in order to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data? Please explain.
greeneto 4 years ago
Something must confused you... I never said that that was possible!, if I did, please tell me where.
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, my question was rhetorical, for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that religious faith and science are fundamentally different. The testability criterion is one example of this (a very important example). And apparently we agree that religious doctrine is not testable.
Now, what are these elements of science that are not testable? That are based merely on the same kind of faith as religious faith and that are not subject to empirical testing or rational analysis?
greeneto 4 years ago
Any axiom. And consider also that every religious faith is being empiricaly tested on daily basis, and subject to the most "qualified" rational analysis... or you found any believer that doesn´t give reasons and experiences (testimony) for what he believes?. Yeah, I know... you don´t agree with those reasons and don´t share the experinces, but that is not reason enough to make them wrong or invalid "per se" :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, your position on this point is becoming incoherent. Sometimes you claim religious faith is empirically testable, yet other times you agree with me that it isn't. In fact, religious faith is NOT being empirically tested on a daily basis, because religious faith cannot be scientifically tested even in principle. So now I ask you again: What scientific investigation/research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
greeneto 4 years ago
My position is coherent (as any other one) referred to the set of elements I´m considering. I said that religious faith is empirically testable... by believers :). Never said that it could be scientifically tested, those are different things :).
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, religious faith is empirically testable. I ask you again: What scientific investigation/research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
greeneto 4 years ago
I wrote, "ablheza, religious faith is empirically testable." I left out the word "not." I hope it's obvious that was an unintentional typing error, since I've previously stated repeatedly that religious faith is not empirically testable. Again, if it was empirically testable, then you could empirically test the doctrine of the Trinity, for example. But you can't. It's impossible.
greeneto 4 years ago
I see that for you "empirical" and "scientifically" are equivalent. For me they are not. Religion is empirically testable (tested by experience -I prayed,God gave me :)-), that is not the same than say that is scientifically tested (tested by the scientific method) (I pray... well, lets see what happens, you pray... lets see what happens again, he prays... can we find a generalization for what happens? :)).
ablheza 4 years ago
Science and empirical testability are intimately, fundamentally connected. Without empirical testability, you don't have science. Religion is not empirically testable. This is the point. The more you keep trying to pretend that religious faith and faith in science are the same thing, the more we see they're not the same thing at all. And I ask you again: What scientific research could you perform to subject the religious doctrine of the Trinity to objective testing against empirical data?
greeneto 4 years ago
That's funny you should bring up prayer. The claims for prayer *are* empirically testable, and scientific studies have demonstrated that prayer has zero effect, like a proposed drug that doesn't actually work. Oh, yeah, that means prayer doesn't even "work"! So it doesn't matter whether you pray to God, or Allah, or Krishna, or Isis, or, my favorite, Aphrodite, it's merely a matter of personal preference.
greeneto 4 years ago
It works... for the prayer... and for the prayer that is the only thing that matters :). He may feel sorry that it doesn´t work for you... but you know... God acts in misterious ways!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, prayer can help a person feel better emotionally, subjectively. But it does not help people physically, objectively. This is what the scientific studies show. Science and religion are fundamentally different, not the same. This is my point. If someone wishes to believe that God - or Krishna - or Isis - or Aphrodite - is working in "mysterious" ways to help him feel better he is certainly free to do so. But that is merely a subjective belief, not empirical reality.
greeneto 4 years ago
ablheza, you keep referring to untestable axioms in science, but you never actually say what what it is that's supposed to be untestable. I've asked you about this before but you did not respond.
greeneto 4 years ago
Anything that you call an axiom is untestable by definition, and sometimes almost "biblical" :). I referred to the definition of "point" in the video as an example of that.
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, you keep referring to untestable axioms in science, but you never actually say what what it is that's supposed to be untestable.
greeneto 4 years ago
What every axiom defines is untestable by definition.
ablheza 4 years ago
ablheza, you keep referring to untestable axioms in science, but you never actually say what it is that's supposed to be untestable.
greeneto 4 years ago
it´s hard to understand what you say here..I´ll try another vid..
Brazdolph 4 years ago
It was my first and didn´t have much experience with audio... I will do a "reloaded" version soon. :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Sounds like the mic gain is set too high
automath 4 years ago
Yeah! I know... now. Probably I will do a "reloaded" version soon :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Sorry mate- your music put me off right at the beginning.
With all due respect, use subtitles next time!
Mind you, I like your hair.
sibilkkoloft 4 years ago
Mmm... this is an old video, some subtitles were there, but the hair is not more!... at least for a while until it grow again. Summer is comming here! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Science would argue its dogma is based on verifiable facts. Are you saying such "facts" are still equal to faith. I'm confused.
ZITZON 4 years ago
No... I´m just saying that on the very first base of every fact we find "non demostrable assumptions" -axioms- that we choose to believe in, based on that we conclude that they help us to build a model of reality that works for us. That is exactly the same that a religious person does.
ablheza 4 years ago
Then the model of reality (dominant paradigm) can be held as "fact" or is it still "belief" because as often happens new theories and discoveries overthrow
the old?
ZITZON 4 years ago
Well... as everything it may be a matter of choice. But if you hold things as "facts" perhaps you will be renouncing to your right to doubt and also hold you from discovering new things. Probably it will be wiser to take everything as beliefs and keep on walking on the seek of knowledge :). All revolutionary scientist treated their actual "facts" as beliefs, if not we will be still standing at the center of the universe! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Yes everything is basically belief and like your conclusion = respect beliefs! Often new discoveries come from trying to prove beliefs s.a. Capernicus. I've just watched your POW on arguements so enough energy on this discussion.
ZITZON 4 years ago
I will check... and I will try to find the differences! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
I believe in paint... Paint is faith to me... I know it will dry, therefore I believe..
SOS10 4 years ago
Tell me what you know, I will find what you believe :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Science does not require faith. Science has no axioms. Science has never claimed to produce absolute knowledge, just approximations that are getting better and better. Science is open-mined, but not gullible.
ablheza, perhaps you need to take a course or read a book about scientific methodology or the philosophy of science?
Mattara 4 years ago 2
Please, just lead me to those readings and I´ll check them. I´m very interested on the ones that explains that science has no axioms. About the rest, ýou should not argue with me, you should argue with the dictionary, I tried to include all the definitions in text on the video. Thanks for your comment!
ablheza 4 years ago
So are you saying that Axioms are taken for granted if the world we live in is properly perceived? or does an Axiom have nothing to do with perception? from what you said, if im not mistaken they are taken for granted as true. So to be taken for granted, they must be universally perceived, or nearly universally perceived as true.
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
I repeated what the dictionary says, that an axiom "is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths"... I think that you may be right relating this with "universally perception" or at least "most commonly accepted perceptions", and of course with the fact that not everything can be "proved".
ablheza 4 years ago
You're a smart guy- math is a very abstract & useful concept- are dogmas equivalent to axioms- perhaps to a degree- understanding ourselves/brain biology via neuroscience may answer much of why/how/what we are methinks- lack of understanding/knowledge & inability to demonstrate/prove abstract ideas will always appear mysterious/paradoxical to logic.
Does this = god exists?
Maybe it depends on how we understand ourselves eh.
docrufus 4 years ago
Thanks! Based on the abstractions of math we construct the model of the universe where we live... so it must not be so abstract :). Axioms not only exist in math. About your last phrase, who do you prefer I quote? Protágoras or Heidegger? :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Ya- agreedx2- don't trust most philosophers- explaining the unexplainable- mostly BS.
Prefer your opinion- my opinion is we take ourselves too seriously most of the time.
docrufus 4 years ago
How couldn´t that be if "a man is the measure to everything" (Protagoras). And about philosophers, Heiddegger said "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy", so he would probably agree with you on your lack of trust!! :). My opinion about "Maybe it depends on how we understand ourselves", agree! is for that that we must seek the "EVIDENCE INSIDE!!" :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Familiar with both quotes & agree- so gave up on most philosophy years ago- decided to judge for myself- free-think if you like- glad you agree- the evidence is inside- so being honest with oneself is key- yes.
docrufus 4 years ago
well said...to me, an interesting cultural analysis. You may be interested in Lustig and Koester's "axioms" on belief, values and norms.
youngbloodkennels 4 years ago
Thanks! I will check Lustig & Koester! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
I could barely understand, terrible audio.
Btw, the problem is that Science is not so that we know, Science only tries to explain. That's different. Knowledge and explanation are not synonymous. For some they coincide, for others explanation is only part of knowledge. If I can "explain" why someone acted in one way and not another does not necessarily mean that I "know" that person.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Why science trys to explain?... to obtain what?. What are the other things that are a part of knowledge as explanation is?
ablheza 4 years ago
OMG YOUR SOUND IS KILLING MY EARS
boylebongo 4 years ago
Yeah! I know... it was a first experience. I have faith that I will be able to improve in in next videos, :)
ablheza 4 years ago
You can prove that god exsists?? Wow! You have any idea how much money the church will give u for doing that? ud be the richest man on earth!
Track607 4 years ago
Remember, also I can prove the NOSTROFORMICIUM exists! Quite nice job for a skeptical person! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Please present evidence for the existence of any gods.
frid9999 4 years ago
OK! As soon as I have time to make another "spoken" video... NOSTROFORMICIUM would be enough? or you want any of the others? :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Any god is fine. Ixtab or Thor would great!
frid9999 4 years ago
I didn´t forget you... I´m starting to work on the video response... meanwhile you can probably invest your time presenting some evidence for "There is a set such that no set is a member of it" ;)
ablheza 4 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have evidence that there are no gods - the perfect vacuum of evidence for the existence of any gods.
frid9999 4 years ago
Don´t worry... it´s just another thing that you believe without having the chance of presenting evidence of it! :). Hope to have your video response ready this days.
ablheza 4 years ago
This is the best video i've seen on youtube.
:)
Onanist1 5 years ago
Being as skeptical as I say I am, the first thing I did is check your profile... so I underestand clearly: at this time: VIDEOS WATCHED: 1 !!! :)
ablheza 5 years ago
Videos watched under this account, 1. Videos watched overall, 1000+ (i usually close and open new accounts all the time). I discovered youtube over a year ago, and have since been addicted. :) This is indeed the best video out of that 1000+ I've seen. :)
Onanist1 5 years ago
Thanks! I really appreciate your comment! I´ll do my best traying to make better the next ones so you can change your opinion!! :)
ablheza 5 years ago
I remember when I took my Intro. to Philosophy class, the professor (who was brilliant) told us that his main goal for that semester was to have us leave questioning EVERYTHING that we once thought we knew. I remember thinking how healthy it was to question, doubt and be skeptical. :)
oneinwater 5 years ago
We can look at the recent examples in quantum physics where very little can even be observed, let alone known. There is a great deal of faith in understanding concepts like string theory and multiple dimensions, but hopefully one day science will play its role and make our understanding of these things more concrete, or as concrete as we can make them.
oneinwater 5 years ago
Nice video! I finally got a chance to see it. It's interesting how faith plays a big role in knowledge. As much as science tries to distance itself from philosophy, it can't because philosophy comes before science, not the other way around. Before doing anything else, a scientist makes some assumptions about what things could possibly be like, THEN he seeks to find some "absolutes".
oneinwater 5 years ago
Again!! Hey!! who favorited this one?? come! talk to us!! The bunch wants to know about you!! :)
ablheza 5 years ago