Okay, I'm taking the bait, and I'll come down rather hard on it, because the concepts of science and reasoning are being abused in Dianevas interesting (but infuriating) post.
I'll give you a bit of my background, in order that you can understand, where I'm coming from. I'm an electrical engineer with a Ph.d in physics. In my daily work I function as a mathematician - particularly focusing on statistical modelling and probability theory (Bayesian, to be specific).
I sympathize with the sentiment of Seltiez' originals post, not despite the fact that I am completely accepting of the most hard core of scientific principles: the Bayesian theorem, but because of it. This theorem states (actually it follows from it) that unless you know something with certainty - before looking at the evidence - then you can NEVER attain certainty later! And if you do know, prior to looking at the evidence, then you are God - and not simply a mere human being. We human beings must always await the evidence, and even if this evidence piles up on one side, we can never reach complete certainty. But we can of course be compelled to pick the more probable side.
As a good scientist you will never be sidetracked from looking at the probabilities and - hopefully - you will gradually move towards the one side or the other, of whatever question you are concerning yourself with. Good science progresses like that.
However, when we are talking about the concept of an afterlife, or of unicorns, or of alien abductions, or any other controversial matter of this nature, then we have not yet gotten much evidence on either side. For any given person, who may never have seen a unicorn, it may seem compelling to believe that unicorns never existed. But that does not allow the person to rule out completely, that unicorns have at one time existed - or indeed that they still do.
A simple example should elucidate the point: presumably none of us here on DreamViews have ever seen Emperor Napoleon. Should we therefore assume, that he never existed? We do have some evidence pointing in the direction that he was real: lots of people have been writing about him and his actions. This should increase the probability, that he actually existed. But lots has also been written about the afterlife, unicorns, and alien abductions ...
My point in all of this is: don't rule anything out, until you have conclusive (not merely compelling) evidence to support that it cannot be!
A few further comments to some of the points raised (merely because I got annoyed by them - not because they are all that important):
Originally Posted by Dianeva
A drastic example: Someone believes in unicorns so they dedicate their whole life to hunting them down, and waste their life. In general you want to avoid that kind of thing, so you should strive to know the truth.
This is not a good example, because they might have a wonderful time hunting down those unicorns - irrespective of never finding them!
Originally Posted by Dianeva
For example, if you believe in any sort of afterlife and use that belief to comfort yourself when a loved one dies, isn't that a bit sad, if it really isn't true and the person really is gone in all senses?
Why would that be sad? Look at it this way: a person, who believes in the afterlife, can never discover for sure, that (s)he was wrong. But a person, who does not believe in an afterlife, can never discover to be right! Who has got the nicer end of that stick?
Originally Posted by Dianeva
Ex: You have a container filled with 1000 blue beads and 50 red beads. You close your eyes and choose one at random. Are you just as likely to be holding a blue bead as a red bead?
This example is inappropriate, because you start with knowledge of the number of blue and red beads. In reality, we start without any knowledge at all.
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I don't think there's anything wrong with using intuition for some things. Sometimes we'll sort of 'know' something subconsciously before we realize why we know it. But even these intuitions are also based on reason, on a probability assessment that went on subconsciously.
This is pure speculation on your part. No discovery of the link between intuition and reasoning has ever been proven correct (nor, unless I am mistaken, has it ever been attempted to establish such a link).
I am sorry, if my post seems unfairly harsh. But over my life I have seen so much pseudo-science being promoted as the real thing, and it gets me every time.
One last thing, which sort of negates everything said above by me or anyone else: who are we, to believe that we know or understand anything at all? How would any person prove - even just to him or her self - that (s)he is not simply a thought in another persons dream?
Really - think about that one!
|
|
Bookmarks