Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 11:30:52 GMT -8
Science is a knowledge system, not a belief system. (some of the following with regards to Ableson) While the distinctions between belief systems and knowledge systems are not absolute and belief systems have much in common with knowledge systems, there are features that differentiate the two. Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of Reality. These systems rely heavily upon personal commitment and cognitive congruence. Typically belief systems contain episodic material. Knowledge systems have no apparent need for episodic material, relying instead entirely on general facts and principles. There are non-consensual elements between differing belief systems. Because of the non-consensual nature of belief systems, they are not falsifiable. Knowledge systems such as science are based on hypotheses that are governed by the principle of falsification. Belief systems are in part concerned with the existence or nonexistence of certain conceptual entities. The insistence that some entities exists implies an awareness of others who believe they don’t exist. These entities are usually central to the belief system and they play an unusual role which is not typically found in the concepts of straight knowledge systems. Belief systems have undefined boundaries and a need to implicate the self-concept of the believer at some level. Self-concepts have wide boundaries. Knowledge systems usually exclude the Self and are limited to the restricted problem areas. There's more; involving evaluative components, variable credences, and so on. You get the picture. Here's a test to mark the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. Two statements are knowledge based, one statement is belief based. Which is which? 1) A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. 2) Human beings have souls, cats and dogs do not. 3) The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.256 days.
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on Feb 22, 2017 12:29:03 GMT -8
My feelings about climate change really come down to this. It doesn't matter whether I believe in it or not. I'm concerned about what happens if we ignore what's going on and do nothing and that results in a worsening of the condition. That scares me and it doesn't scare me for myself. It scares me because my daughter will have to live in the world that's coming. This is how I feel. Something seems to be happening, natural or man-made. Would cutting down/out emissions, even if they're not to blame, be a good thing? Absolutely. A problem, even one caused by just one factor, can have several solutions that improve or eliminate it. That's what needs to be the focus, not just the cause alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 13:20:28 GMT -8
Here's a test to mark the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. Two statements are knowledge based, one statement is belief based. Which is which? 1) A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. 2) Human beings have souls, cats and dogs do not. 3) The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.256 days. Maybe I'm not that bright, but I thought a test was a method of assessing knowledge. I'm not quite sure I understand where the "test" part of your example is, or how it marks the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. The "answer" itself is quite obvious: a soul is an intangible thing, it cannot be observed by the senses, and thus isn't scientifically demonstrable. What I don't understand, however, is how that test marks the differences it's supposed to mark. However, let's make it a little more simple: science is concerned with what is observable, and rightly so. So, how is it, then, that we know that electrons, for example, exist? We cannot touch them, we cannot taste them, we cannot smell them, we cannot hear them, and we cannot feel them. I cannot point to an electron and say "this is an electron!" We know, however, that electrons exist, because we CAN observe their interactions with the observable universe around us. There are, in fact, negatively charged particles which make up an atom, which in turn makes up a molecule, which makes up matter as we observe it, which we can observe. Really simplistic explanation, but enough to get the point across. Just because something cannot be observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...and, on top of that, just because something cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it's a matter of faith to say that it exists.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Feb 22, 2017 16:30:36 GMT -8
Here's a test to mark the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. Two statements are knowledge based, one statement is belief based. Which is which? 1) A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. 2) Human beings have souls, cats and dogs do not. 3) The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.256 days. Maybe I'm not that bright, but I thought a test was a method of assessing knowledge. I'm not quite sure I understand where the "test" part of your example is, or how it marks the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. The "answer" itself is quite obvious: a soul is an intangible thing, it cannot be observed by the senses, and thus isn't scientifically demonstrable. What I don't understand, however, is how that test marks the differences it's supposed to mark. However, let's make it a little more simple: science is concerned with what is observable, and rightly so. So, how is it, then, that we know that electrons, for example, exist? We cannot touch them, we cannot taste them, we cannot smell them, we cannot hear them, and we cannot feel them. I cannot point to an electron and say "this is an electron!"We know, however, that electrons exist, because we CAN observe their interactions with the observable universe around us. There are, in fact, negatively charged particles which make up an atom, which in turn makes up a molecule, which makes up matter as we observe it, which we can observe. Really simplistic explanation, but enough to get the point across. Just because something cannot be observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...and, on top of that, just because something cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it's a matter of faith to say that it exists. Actually you can point to a photograph of a electron orbit and say, there's an electron in there io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 17:50:54 GMT -8
Maybe I'm not that bright, but I thought a test was a method of assessing knowledge. I'm not quite sure I understand where the "test" part of your example is, or how it marks the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. The "answer" itself is quite obvious: a soul is an intangible thing, it cannot be observed by the senses, and thus isn't scientifically demonstrable. What I don't understand, however, is how that test marks the differences it's supposed to mark. However, let's make it a little more simple: science is concerned with what is observable, and rightly so. So, how is it, then, that we know that electrons, for example, exist? We cannot touch them, we cannot taste them, we cannot smell them, we cannot hear them, and we cannot feel them. I cannot point to an electron and say "this is an electron!"We know, however, that electrons exist, because we CAN observe their interactions with the observable universe around us. There are, in fact, negatively charged particles which make up an atom, which in turn makes up a molecule, which makes up matter as we observe it, which we can observe. Really simplistic explanation, but enough to get the point across. Just because something cannot be observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...and, on top of that, just because something cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it's a matter of faith to say that it exists. Actually you can point to a photograph of a electron orbit and say, there's an electron in there io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901What you're looking at is the space an electron travels in....not the electron itself. It's somewhat like looking at the orbit of the earth....which is, of course, orders of magnitude bigger than the earth itself.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Feb 22, 2017 20:57:04 GMT -8
What you're looking at is the space an electron travels in....not the electron itself. It's somewhat like looking at the orbit of the earth....which is, of course, orders of magnitude bigger than the earth itself. Re-red and try again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 21:00:28 GMT -8
What you're looking at is the space an electron travels in....not the electron itself. It's somewhat like looking at the orbit of the earth....which is, of course, orders of magnitude bigger than the earth itself. Re-red and try again I'm sorry, what?
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Feb 22, 2017 21:04:24 GMT -8
Just saying I never said you could literally point out a electron. You basically just repeated what I said. Most probably because you don't understand that I am just throwing anecdotal evidence out there for the fun of sharing it. It is quite staggering though, in relation, an electron orbit is the size of the entire solar system relative to the atom nucleus. Everything is made up of mostly empty space. Including my head
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 21:30:41 GMT -8
Just saying I never said you could literally point out a electron. You basically just repeated what I said. Most probably because you don't understand that I am just throwing anecdotal evidence out there for the fun of sharing it. No, you can't literally point out an electron. Yet. I'm glad we agree. Agreed.
|
|
docgo
Advanced Noob
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 20
|
Post by docgo on Feb 22, 2017 23:31:23 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 7:20:41 GMT -8
Yes, Al Gore is a terrible liar, and the absolute worst "face" of the GW crowd. He's told lie after lie after lie, and no one calls him on it. And...he's made tens of millions of dollars on his "cause." He's no better than the speculators who see comics as a means to make money, but have no interest or investment in the artform itself. They, and he, are leeches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:40:09 GMT -8
Here's a test to mark the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. Two statements are knowledge based, one statement is belief based. Which is which? 1) A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. 2) Human beings have souls, cats and dogs do not. 3) The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.256 days. Maybe I'm not that bright, but I thought a test was a method of assessing knowledge. I'm not quite sure I understand where the "test" part of your example is, or how it marks the difference between belief systems and knowledge systems. The "answer" itself is quite obvious: a soul is an intangible thing, it cannot be observed by the senses, and thus isn't scientifically demonstrable.What I don't understand, however, is how that test marks the differences it's supposed to mark. However, let's make it a little more simple: science is concerned with what is observable, and rightly so. So, how is it, then, that we know that electrons, for example, exist? We cannot touch them, we cannot taste them, we cannot smell them, we cannot hear them, and we cannot feel them. I cannot point to an electron and say "this is an electron!" We know, however, that electrons exist, because we CAN observe their interactions with the observable universe around us. There are, in fact, negatively charged particles which make up an atom, which in turn makes up a molecule, which makes up matter as we observe it, which we can observe. Really simplistic explanation, but enough to get the point across. Just because something cannot be observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...and, on top of that, just because something cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it's a matter of faith to say that it exists.My test was to show the difference between belief and science. We just need the falsification principal for this one. The concept of a soul is not falsifiable. The elemental makeup of water and the Earth's orbit around the sun, are. Take your example of an electron, it is scientifically possible to prove whether an electron exists or not. Science uses 3 ways to prove (or disprove) the existence of sub-atomic particles. Direct observation, indirect observation (or inferred presence) and prediction from theory. Shortly after electrons were discovered in the late 19th century, it was learned these particles could be formed into beams and manipulated into images that would ultimately become television. The discovery of X-rays was also produced by the study of electrons. Electromagnetic radiation is created when an atomic particle (like an electron) is accelerated by an electric field. This type of energy takes form all around us in many ways; radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays, for example. And these all are part of Electromagnetic Theory. If electrons did not exist, you would not be reading this on your computer screen. You wouldn't have a computer, either. This is physical tangible proof, through indirect observation and positive result from predictive theory.The existence of electrons and other subatomic particles have had the possibility of being proven false through scientific test and research. The opposite has happened. A soul? Well, here... "A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. Thus, the core element of a scientific hypothesis is that it must have the capability of being proven false. The falsification principle asserts that if something cannot be proved wrong, then it is meaningless." “Science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification.” - Popper I am no scientist. I'm not all that bright, myself. Or highly educated. I will say, as others have stated, that it is clear that the average American today has little understanding of real science and how it works. I observe the results of this unawareness through the views expressed by people in all social strata of Americana, including government and leadership. It scares me. And I'm just an ex long-haired country boy from Florida.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:47:20 GMT -8
Yes, Al Gore is a terrible liar, and the absolute worst "face" of the GW crowd. He's told lie after lie after lie, and no one calls him on it. And...he's made tens of millions of dollars on his "cause." He's no better than the speculators who see comics as a means to make money, but have no interest or investment in the artform itself. They, and he, are leeches. I agree with all this 100%
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Feb 23, 2017 18:04:00 GMT -8
Just saying I never said you could literally point out a electron. You basically just repeated what I said. Most probably because you don't understand that I am just throwing anecdotal evidence out there for the fun of sharing it. No, you can't literally point out an electron. Yet. I'm glad we agree. Agreed. The orbit or my empty head?
|
|
slym2none
TCBF Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 3,540
|
Post by slym2none on Feb 24, 2017 15:28:22 GMT -8
No, you can't literally point out an electron. Yet. I'm glad we agree. Agreed. The orbit or my empty head? Yes!
|
|