Perhaps someone can answer the original question in this thread.
Thanks Jon:
This thread is a good example of what has always made the Lounge shine, IMHO. You can ask about one thing and then get a great education in something related.
I may have phrased my question poorly. As I recall, the previous thread had got to a point where there was back-and-forth about the wisdom of believing in things that can't be proven. Someone made the point that such reliance on accepting the unproven existed in science.
I seems to be me that they mentioned two particular principles or theories - may even have been The Theory of ______ and The Theory of ______, - on which a lot of ensuing science didn't work unless you first accepted these two unknowns as true.
ryck
and tacit answered:
Quote:
That was me; I argued then, and continue to argue now, that accepting things on faith, without evidence, is a mistake.
Then the conversation that was requested proceeded to where we are:
The you rang in:
Quote:
Though it got bad reviews from the critics, i do remember enjoying the book "The Tao of Physics" a few decades back.
then joemikeb:
Quote:
It strikes me that all scientific knowledge is genuinely a working hypothesis that we accept on faith as true until more or better understanding comes along.
oldMACman said:
Quote:
Mathematical modelling of the physical world is bound to have a "faith" component. I'm not talking about an Old Man With A Beard, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Macnerd10 said:
Quote:
I generally agree but the word "faith" makes me uneasy.
then tact said:
Quote:
One of the fundamental axioms of science, though, is that one does not benefit from believing that something exists when one has absolutely, positively no evidence to support that belief.
and you responded:
Quote:
No benefit? Who says so? AFAIK, scientists haven't derived any equations for love either... so what do they know? smirk Put all the geniuses on the planet into a [sterile] building and supply them with barrels containing every element in the universe, plus an unlimited amount of every type of energy. With all that, they couldn't even create a cockroach. Life and love are supposed to remain mysterious wonders. Believe anything you want. Your guess is as good as mine (maybe).
and again:
Quote:
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Some folks can look at a tree or a puppy and see that as sufficient evidence of a Supreme Being. For me, the fact that i (or you) can *think* about and intelligently discuss (speculate on?) these existential matters is "evidence" enough that there's a lot more going on here than just random atoms and subatomic particles converging after some Big Bang.
and again:
Quote:
Ironically we have religious fanatics on one hand... and now "scientists" trying to play god on the other.
Extremists either way you slice it.
above is where YOU caught my eye.
And again:
Quote:
You know, even good old Einstein wasn't exactly "thrilled" about the A-Bomb. And -- unless i'm mistaken -- Einstein made many a reference to God as well.
And again at the end of the third page and still I haven't posted.
Quote:
As i hope i made clear... i don't claim to be right (about anything here), or say that you're wrong. Just exchanging ideas.
Then I did:
Quote:
Artificial flowers cannot die for life within them is illusion.
I guess one could say that "I'm the one who is bashing" something, or avoiding something else, if it serves their need to believe anything… even if it's crud under their fingernails accumulated by scratching their imaginary blackboard to hear an echo.
There are reasons why humans have created beliefs in the supernatural, and there are consequences to that approach as well as a history of results. If pointing that out to a defender of the notion makes them defensive… there is probably an explanation from a scientific perspective.
