Originally Posted by little nemo
Originally Posted by Sandform
I would like an example if you can provide one.
I will provide you with an article of scientific faith you provided yourself;
In order for something to be true, it must have the ability to be observed by another person at the same time... "if" someone else were in the room, they would percieve the same surroundings and events.
This is a root assumption, fully approved through the application of scientific methodologies. If you take this statement as 'gospel' you will be forced to reject any information from whatever source - even if that source is your own direct experience - that runs counter to it. You will filter it out, explain it away, 'rationalize' it, or simply ignore it.
Our perceptive mechanisms are the handmaidens of our expectations. Not the other way around. The statement "Believing is seeing." is far truer than you can imagine, but to test its truthfulness you would have to take the plunge into the wild and woolly realms of not-so-rational, subjective experience. (Note; I did not say irrational.)
Well first off if your going to quote someone it would be nice if you would use direct quotes, without cutting through the middle of the quote, what you failed to mention was that inbetween these words. "In order for something to be true, it must have the ability to be observed by another person at the same time...[That doesn't mean that one individual can not experience something by himself that is real, it simply means that] "if" someone else were in the room, they would percieve the same surroundings and events."
The statement that "you will be forced to reject any information from whatever source -" is in no way true whatsoever. If there is evidence that the counter evidence is true, then there will be an explaination of why it is true. Because, if something is true, there will be evidence that it is! If something is not true, then there will be no evidence.
Let me make this very clear, and if you reject this next statement you are indeed a moron, or whatever word is less offensive for mentaly inferior to the rest of society.
If there is not concrete evidence for something, then you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IT over other things that there ARE concrete evidence for.
You see, you would like me to believe anything that I percieve to be true (like for example by your logic every dream i've ever had was indeed actually a factual existence), however without evidence of why it is true, there is no reason to believe it is true.
There ARE explainations for seeing things that aren't real, they are called hallucinations...
Btw, your answer in no way provided an answer for the question that you quoted, the question was,
Show me an example of this.
If you think of science as a kind of religion you will more easily catch sight how heavily it relies on some very unscientific assumptions, and demands a kind of unquestioning faith from its adherents.
You say that your answer was an example because you say that we will "rationalize it" or etc. untill we reach a conclusion that is that of the same we already had. However that is not true, often when a scientist is presented with a situation that counters what he normally would believe through science, he comes up with NEW THEORIES that explain why it happened.
Like for example, I saw a purple 3 headed monkey walk by me just now...A scientist will look at this and explore the possibilities, "does this monkey exist?" A scientist will look for evidence, and see that there is none
"Is it possible this person is lieing?", scientist will try to find out if that is true, "Is it possible this person is hallucinating?" a scientist will try to find out if this is true.
|
|
Bookmarks