Q and A about what it means to follow Christ

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Since we're talking about science, I'd like to discuss faith and a concept which I think I've invented: epistemological ethics.

In epistemology, there are two basic modes of concept formation: deduction and induction. In "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" Ayn Rand does a capable job explaining deduction, measurement, and internal vocabulary, and I highly recommend it as an update on Aristotelian philosophy. However, she flat-out admitted she had no clue on induction (which in turn fucks up her metaphysics)... so naturally, induction is something I've thought about a lot.

Perhaps the best way to convey what induction is is by defining the scientific method as "formalized, self-aware induction." Induction starts with a problem, then a possible answer to that problem, then the analysis of evidence, then finally the upgrading of a possible answer to a believed one.

Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." A hypothesis (or its less self-aware equivalent) can be disproven through induction, but proof through induction is impossible. A theory is basically a glorified hypothesis, one with the dubious distinction of not having been disproved yet and thus believed.

Almost every conclusion is formed by induction, not deduction. We enter this world with our senses (sight, hearing, etc), capacity for motor output (moving limbs, etc), impulses (baby crying), and little else. No knowledge whatsoever; no comprehension that reality exists. Watch a newborn sometime; they spend their time slowly coming to the conclusion that they can sense the movement of their limbs, that their motor output creates sensory input... that their senses and their bodies exist in the same reality. "Reality exists" is an inductive conclusion, one that we never proved to ourselves and never will (hence the Matrix movies).

But what is it specifically that elevates the hypothesis to a theory? Not community consensus; you can practice the scientific method completely alone. Not a certain number of experiments; Einstein already debunked that. What then? Faith. Nothing more and nothing less. It is the free will to believe or to remain skeptical.

But which hypotheses should we put our faith in? What to believe? And this is where epistemological ethics comes in; it is the ethical framework we create for ourselves to decide what evidentiary burdens are necessary to justify the investment of our faith.

Experimentation is not the only form of supporting evidence. Is it sufficient evidence to be in type in a book claimed to be the Word of God? Is it enough that Keith Olbermann said it? Or Milo Yiannopoulos? Is it enough that a photographic image in a textbook shows it? And if these aren't enough, how much time do we have to spare to search for evidence that meets a higher standard? Like many ethical decisions, economics (of time mostly, but also of money) plays a role; we need to place value on the acquisition of additional evidence relative to other things we could achieve with those resources.

But in any case, we must take personal responsibility for our choice on whether or not to invest our faith. It is, after all, our choice.

Some atheists claim that they live a life without faith, only logic; simultaneously, some theists claim that faith isn't faith if it requires evidence, if it isn't belief in the incredible. Both of these notions are hogwash. A life truly without faith would be one where even the senses are given zero trust, making actual living impossible; science requires faith to function; evidence is not equal to proof, so faith is needed to believe even in the face of mountains of confirming evidence. What's really going on between atheists and theists is a fundamental disagreement in epistemological ethics, in the standards that should be requisite for belief.

"

solwitch wrote:

Um... You're talking about causality.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

solwitch wrote:

Um... You're talking about causality.

Um, no...

"

Head_Less wrote:

mindblow 1: first 2 humans had no belly buttons and their childrens had sex with each others to populate the earth.

"

solwitch wrote:

"

Head_Less wrote:

mindblow 1: first 2 humans had no belly buttons and their childrens had sex with each others to populate the earth.

Mindblow 2: What's the point of male nipples?