Why do people have such a dogmatic view of science?

[ChefPapiChulo]

It’s annoying when people say “I don’t believe in God, I believe in Science.” Okay, well you’re just replacing “God” with another God, it’s just a different name.

Just say, I’m a logical human being and I consider all possibilities. That would be better than having some stupid undying loyalty to science and scientist.

Updates

+1 y

Just imagine "trusting in science" just because a scientist said it. As if they couldn't be wrong. What a horrible philosophy to have.

Updates

+1 y

"It might resemble religion but there is a key difference. That difference is evidence. There is a better reason to be confident in the scientific method than to be confident in religious dogma."

I can have evidence that bigfoot is real and that i saw him. Evidence is not what makes a theory true. Empirical evidence that is tested thoroughly and holds up in testing is what makes a hypothesis a theory.

So the "key difference" isn't evidence.

This man can't even properly form an argument

[OfDeath]

Science isn't a god. Science is a method we use to ascertain facts.

Most importantly, science doesn't make unfalsifiable claims. Everything in science is subject to reevaluation as we learn more about nature. The mark of a good scientific theory is how it holds up to scrutiny. If you can devise an experiment which, if produced a particular result, it would falsify a scientific theory and you do that experiment but don't get that result and you get a result with agrees with the theory instead, you can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that the theory is true. The more of those experiments it withstands, the more likely it is true. The more we learn, the more we need to test past results to see if they still stand when tested with new tools and methods. One of the tenets of science is that nothing is held as an objective truth. Even the most evidential scientific discoveries aren't considered objective truths. Although an observation which holds true 100% of the time is highly unlikely to be proven false, testing it is still a requirement. Science is about discovery, not authority.

That is completely different to an unfalsifiable god which is believed on blind faith with no reliable evidence.

[ChefPapiChulo]

i swear we've had a similar argument before.

[OfDeath]

What would the argument to that even be? Are you saying science has never lead to an actual discovery which can be demonstrated to still be true over and over again?

[OfDeath]

Maybe that was the wrong question. I mean, the scientific method has obviously been shown to work but of course isn't perfect because we can only find facts with facts and some of our facts are wrong because we didn't have strong enough facts when we were trying to decide on a best explanation. But we're not replacing god with science. Science tells us things god cannot and does not. A very simple example would be the weather. When you wake up in the morning and need to know if you need a jacket or not, do you pray to God for a sign? I doubt it. I'm guessing you probably do a little observational test by looking or going outside to check the cloud distribution and air temperature. Or you might even put your trust into meteorologists and actually look up the weather forecast.

God and science aren't the same things. One is imaginary and the other is observational.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I just remember you were out of your league. But i'll school you again.

1. Science doesn't make claims, people do. Science is a process, it's not a person or thing that is capable of making an unfalsifiable claim. This statement is actually the kind of dogmatic view that I'm talking about. And it's a logical fallacy.

2. The rest of what you said is just incoherent rambling about what scientific process looks like. And not many points are made.

My point is when a person becomes too dogmatic in science, it resembles religion.

[OfDeath]

I highly doubt I was out of my league. I don't even remember arguing with you and if I had lost, I definitely would've remembered. Actually being right helps me quite a bit in this situation too.

"1. Science doesn't make claims, people do. Science is a process, it's not a person or thing that is capable of making an unfalsifiable claim. This statement is actually the kind of dogmatic view that I'm talking about. And it's a logical fallacy."

I never said science is a person. You're creating a false straw man and then trying to argue against that instead of anything I actually said. A statement of trust in the scientific method because it has provided verifiable results based on reliable evidence is completely different to believing in an imaginary being with no reliable or verifiable evidence to back it up.

"2. The rest of what you said is just incoherent rambling about what scientific process looks like. And not many points are made."

If you found it hard to comprehend concise prose, that is your problem and not mine.

"My point is when a person becomes too dogmatic in science, it resembles religion."

It might resemble religion but there is a key difference. That difference is evidence. There is a better reason to be confident in the scientific method than to be confident in religious dogma.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I really don't know how to explain it to you buddy. "science doesn't make unfalsifiable claims" science doesn't have the ability to make a claim. There are scientific claims, but science cannot make any claim whether it be unfalsifiable or not. So this premises is false or invalid.

You poorly explained the scientific process. There wasn't much to respond to.

There is no difference when you are dogmatic. Because dogma in science is blind faith. It's not based in evidence when you are following something blindly, thus it resembles a religion.

[OfDeath]

The scientific method is used to ascertain fact. Those facts are not unfalsifiable. The "claims" are the conclusions made using scientific enterprise. I'm not talking about science as if it is a living entity. Never did I imply that. You've either completely misunderstood or you are merely trying to engage in puerile, truculent nit picking.

Trusting science is not blind faith. You are wrong to suggest it is. Science is full of so many checks and balances that there are even checks and balances for the checks and balances!

Believing a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a reputable scientific journal to be fairly accurate information because you know how heavily it has been scrutinized, is the polar opposite of believing something on blind faith.

Blind faith is what you have when you believe something which is based on absolutely no reliable evidence. Believing in god would be a good example of that.

[ChefPapiChulo]

that is exactly what you implied and are implying. You keep repeating the scientific method as if it were a gospel.

When i am talking about the dogmatic view of science. Which can and does exist. When you have a dogmatic view of science, which you are displaying right now, it is similar to religion.

[OfDeath]

Ok stop right there. You can't decide for me what I implied. Are you me? No you are not and I did not imply that. I even spelt it out for you. Look at the very first sentence of my fucking answer.

Look, I will explain one more time. Science is based on evidence. There are different kinds of evidence and the kind relevant to scientific enterprise where the goal is to ascertain fact, is reliable evidence. That is to say evidence which can be tested and verified to be indicative of an actual conclusion or not.

The phone or computer you are using now was made based on such scientific methodology. Trusting that rigorous process is not blind faith, it is rational reasoning.

Most importantly, it may be questioned, tested and thrown out if it is wrong. Religion does everything possible to prevent serious inquiry into its method of deciding what it considers true and enforces dogmatic authority. Which is to claim incontrovertible truth. Trust in science is not blind faith.

By the way, what method would you use to determine a scientific claim was true or not?

[ChefPapiChulo]

"Ok stop right there. You can't decide for me what I implied. Are you me? No you are not and I did not imply that. I even spelt it out for you. Look at the very first sentence of my fucking answer."

You implied it with your own words. A Christian could say "God doesn't make unfalsifiable claims," you just said "Science doesn't make unfalsifiable claims." It's exactly the same thing. Scientist can make unfalsifiable claims. Science can't make any claims, scientist do. And scientist can make unfalsifiable claims.

Science cannot make claims of any kind. Science by definition is the study of things. This is not me nitpicking, this is you being wrong.

"Look, I will explain one more time. Science is based on evidence. There are different kinds of evidence and the kind relevant to scientific enterprise where the goal is to ascertain fact, is reliable evidence. That is to say evidence which can be tested and verified to be indicative of an actual conclusion or not."

Yes this is the scientific method. I'm not arguing against the scientific method. The idea of science is very useful.

"The phone or computer you are using now was made based on such scientific methodology. Trusting that rigorous process is not blind faith, it is rational reasoning."

Again I'm not arguing against the use of science. I'm saying that people who hold a dogmatic view of science are in the same league as religious people. But just because scientist gave us X, Y, Z, it doesn't mean scientist can do no wrong. And another logical fallacy.

[OfDeath]

Science doesn't make unfalsifiable claims." you fucking well know I'm not talking about science as if it is a person which I cleared up with my very first line of my original response where I defined science as: "Science is a method we use to ascertain facts." So it is time to cut the shit.

Once again you are falsely claiming I implied something I unequivocally did not in a failed attempt to create a straw man caricature of my argument. This is futile and does not bode well for you. Not only does it show you might not understand my actual argument but it also alludes to the possibility you do understand it but just don't want to accept it due to intransigent bias. Which is exactly what the scientific method is designed to prevent. This is actually a pretty good live example of what you don't understand about the scientific method.

[OfDeath]

You are right that God doesn't make any claims (bearing in mind I never implied that science is a deliberate agency and clearly defined it as a method), believers make claims about an imaginary being they refer to as god which aren't based on evidence. This is blind faith.

Yes, scientists can make unfalsifiable claims. However, it is important to note that some of these can be falsifiable in theory, it is just we don't currently have the tools to do so and such claims like the multiverse for example are not used for the purposes of invention or discovery. They are purely speculative. Then there is another unfalsifiable claim a scientist can make such as a scientist claiming god exists but that sort of claim is not scientific and is tangentially irrelevant to this argument. Just like a plumber can make a claim which has nothing to do with plumbing. Anyone can make a claim. In order to determine the veracity of that claim, it needs to be scrutinized by the use of a methodology which can ascertain that veracity.

"Science cannot make claims of any kind. Science by definition is the study of things. This is not me nitpicking, this is you being wrong."

Once again this is a straw man caricature of something I didn't even say. I've refuted this petulance at least 3 times now. This is puerile nit picking with no direction other than toward self inflicted embarrassment for you.

[OfDeath]

"Again I'm not arguing against the use of science. I'm saying that people who hold a dogmatic view of science are in the same league as religious people. But just because scientist gave us X, Y, Z, it doesn't mean scientist can do no wrong. And another logical fallacy."

Look, nobody trusts scientists as if they are gods. When a scientist makes a claim, their methodology is questioned, they are not believed just because they are scientists. That is what checks and balances like repeatable experiments and peer review is all about! And I'm telling you they're not in the same league as religious people at all because staunch advocates of the scientific method have a valid reason to be such. Whereas beguiled religious lackeys have nothing other than blind faith to justify their beliefs which is a poor means of justification.
The comparison is not even close.

What you are doing is invoking a false equivalence fallacy.

And you haven't answered my question by the way.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I’m not a mind reader buddy. You need to get yourself an education.

[OfDeath]

Your response has an extra word. Because clearly, you're just not a reader or you should've understood.

[OfDeath]

And at your update, you have quoted me out of context by conveniently leaving out the next part of what I wrote where I explained what kind of evidence I was talking about.

Looks like you fucked up again.

[sunshineglow]

You are quite delusional with what God shall be. Quite offensive too.

[ChefPapiChulo]

What I said is not a straw man. I picked apart what you said and I explained to you how it’s false. Your original statement was a circular fallacy. The rest was just you on a rant explaining how the scientific method could work.

[OfDeath]

No, if I was indeed saying the words you have unsuccessfully attempted to put in my mouth, it still wouldn't be circular fallacy (you don't seem to understand how to use that sort of argumentation) but it would've been a nonsensical statement. However, I had actually made my point quite clear and concise which you either didn't comprehend or just chose to misinterpret it. So your argument against it was a straw man since you created an argument I didn't make and tried to attack that instead of attempting to attack my actual argument.

The rest wasn't just a rant, I'm fact, the whole thing was an explanation of why your position is one of false equivalence and that you are wrong.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ And I'm telling you they're not in the same league as religious people at all because staunch advocates of the scientific method have a valid reason to be such. ”

Look here, fallacy appeal to consequence.

Something isn’t true or false because it’s desirable. Something is true or false because there is undeniable evidence.

[OfDeath]

Holy crap that last response was a major faux pas on your behalf. Ok, so we had already established you don't know how to use an argument from fallacy strategy. So I suggest you stop trying to do that.

Someone who trusts the scientific method over blind faith isn't doing so because they want science to be true and they'll be exalted for believing it. They are trusting it because the evidence shows the scientific method works.

I haven't seen anyone fuck up that badly while trying to make an argument from fallacy. In fact, belief in God because one hopes it will lead them to heaven would be an example of argumentum ad consequentiam.

So just for future reference, please make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you say it, because you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Delusional.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ I haven't seen anyone fuck up that badly while trying to make an argument from fallacy. In fact, belief in God because one hopes it will lead them to heaven would be an example of argumentum ad consequentiam. ”

Now that is a strawman because I never said anything like that. Your post are filled with fallacies and holes.

[OfDeath]

Lol I would agree that one of us was delusional but if I agreed with you on who it is, we would both be wrong.

Nope, again you've incorrectly attempted to use argument from fallacy. Didn't I charitably advise you to stop trying that because you don't understand how it works?

A straw man is making a false argument to attack instead of attacking the opposing side's actual argument. Me having the courtesy to explain to you why your accusation of logical fallacy was false and then giving you an example of something that particular fallacy would look like is not a straw man argument since I was directly addressing the flaw in your point which falsified it.

There have been no holes from my side.

Good talk bud.

[ChefPapiChulo]

There was no talk. It was you on a rant about what the scientific method is, combined with poor punctuation, and logical fallacies.

[OfDeath]

Actually, it was an emphatic demonstration of why you're wrong. Then it turned into a lesson about argument from fallacy. Hopefully it has put you in good stead for next time 👍

[ChefPapiChulo]

I think you, think you’re speaking on behalf of science (lol you even said we early on when talking about science) but you’re not.

You can’t grasp simple understandings of logic and the application of logic. Or how to create linear paragraphs.

[OfDeath]

That would be an example of the pot calling the kettle black coming from someone with a demonstrated inability to understand how to use argument from fallacy. That is if your accusation were true, which it isn't. And that is not surprising considering who the accusation came from.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Look here.

“Blind faith is what you have when you believe something which is based on absolutely no reliable evidence. Believing in god would be a good example of that.“

Blind faith isn’t when when you have something based on no evidence. Blind faith is when there is contrary evidence and you refuse to listen.

[OfDeath]

No, it's actually when you have no reliable evidence which means you have no verifiable reason to believe something, yet you believe it in spite of that. Hence the term blind faith. The irrational belief in something not seen or evident in any sense.

Having evidence to the contrary of a claim and not acknowledging it is denial.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ You can't decide for me what I implied. Are you me?”

I don’t have to be you to point out what you implied. If you said the sky is blue. I don’t have to be you to know that you implied that the sky is blue. So you’re wrong again here.

Look not once did I disagree with science or the scientific method. So you repeating the definition of the scientific method (very poorly) isn’t necessary. My problem is when people follow science blindly simply because a scientist said it. Specifically the dogmatic view of science is an issue with a lot of people today’s world.
When science is dogmatic, it resembles a religion.

And science isn’t exclusive to religion. They were lead by the same people when the Catholic Church were the leading scholars for a long time.

You see what I did there? I made actual points without saying the scientific method every other paragraph.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Blind faith is following something without reason. Someone can still have evidence and follow something blindly. The evidence doesn’t necessarily have to be factual or not.

You are having a hard time understanding the meaning of words. And it is causing you to have trouble understanding logic.

[OfDeath]

"I don’t have to be you to point out what you implied. If you said the sky is blue. I don’t have to be you to know that you implied that the sky is blue. So you’re wrong again here."

Ok, now I'm beginning to think you're are actually mentally challenged or something. We have been through this already. I have not implied what you are accusing me of. In the second sentence of my original comment I explained my definition of science as being a method. I then used the word science as shorthand for that definition. This is common on an informal forum such as this. By continuing in this vein, you are basing your entire argument against me on a false straw man argument which invalidates your position.

I also reject your insolent side commentary on the efficacy of my explanation of what science is. I gave a clear and concise definition which is in agreement with the formally accepted one.

[OfDeath]

The reason I have had to continue to explain what the scientific method is, was due to the fact you have obstinately refused to read my actual responses and have instead contrived your own false caricature which I never alluded to. Hopefully you now finally understand.

"My problem is when people follow science blindly simply because a scientist said it. Specifically the dogmatic view of science is an issue with a lot of people today’s world.
When science is dogmatic, it resembles a religion."

If you cared to actually read my responses, you would see that I have answered that already: Look, nobody trusts scientists as if they are gods. When a scientist makes a claim, their methodology is questioned, they are not believed just because they are scientists. That is what checks and balances like repeatable experiments and peer review is all about! And I'm telling you they're not in the same league as religious people at all because staunch advocates of the scientific method have a valid reason to be such. Whereas beguiled religious lackeys have nothing other than blind faith to justify their beliefs which is a poor means of justification.
The comparison is not even close.

[OfDeath]

This next statement of yours: "And science isn’t exclusive to religion. They were lead by the same people when the Catholic Church were the leading scholars for a long time."
Is another attempt at making a straw man argument since I have never claimed that religion and science are mutually exclusive. There is a relationship between them. They both attempt to answer questions about nature. The difference is one relies on a method of inquiry which is based on reliable evidence and the other is reliant on blind faith and superstition.
And for your information, the Catholic church outlawed genuine scientific inquiry for a long time and attempted to censor information which contradicted scripture.

[ChefPapiChulo]

im busying doing ACTUAL science homework. I'll respond when i have nothing better to do than give you lessons in logic and English.

[OfDeath]

"You see what I did there? I made actual points without saying the scientific method every other paragraph."

What you did was make an idiot of yourself.

"Blind faith is following something without reason. Someone can still have evidence and follow something blindly. The evidence doesn’t necessarily have to be factual or not."

Well, as I have already explained, it depends on what the evidence is. There are different kinds of evidence. There is reliable evidence like evidence ascertained by means of repeated experimentation or logical calculation based on previously observed parameters such as scientific modelling. And then there is unreliable evidence such as hearsay or personal testimony. Blind faith would only describe someone who believes something based on the latter type of evidence. Believing something based on the former is not blind faith and someone who believes a scientist reporting on experimental findings which have been repeated, peer reviewed and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt is not believing them on blind faith. They are also not treating them like a god or following them religiously. They have a valid reason to believe that scientist.

[OfDeath]

"You are having a hard time understanding the meaning of words. And it is causing you to have trouble understanding logic."

Another lesson I should teach you about argument from fallacy is a particular fallacy called the fallacy fallacy. It would not be a fallacy fallacy on my behalf to use a certain logical fallacy known as the "tu quoque" since I would be using it to argue a truth. That truth is that it in fact you who has demonstrated a lack of logical understanding and an inability to understand basic concepts and the definition of words. If you weren't having that problem, you would've already realised that your entire argument hinges on a false equivalence fallacy and therefore, is false.

[OfDeath]

You better focus extra hard on that then, because you certainly need to make a monumental effort considering your rudimentary understanding of basic concepts.

[devilman666]

The difference is infact evidence. The current scientific model doesn't aim to prove anything, because it can't even prove with 100% certainty that anything in our universe actually exists. I hate to say it, but the Matrix could technically be reality, or we could be part of a dream some alien from another universe is having, therefore you can't even begin to prove anything without assuming things first. Now it might seem stupid for me to "assume" that I exist, but how do you prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt? Like I said, when our very perception is called into question, suddenly you can't prove anything, and since we can't prove our perception to be real, we are stuck. Theories are the best explanation that we have found (which also fits all of the known evidence).

How is science a religion? Or even similar? We at least have direct impirical evidence for the existence of science, and we can see the method that science/scientists use to find these answers (the scientific method), there is also the fact that all scientific papers must be peer reviewed in order to be published.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Slow down. You are getting ahead of yourself.

[devilman666]

How so?

[ChefPapiChulo]

There’s no empirical evidence that science exist. Not even what I was remotely talking about. That statement doesn’t even make sense.

Calm down buddy.

It is close to religion based on its requirement for faith. And when someone has an undying loyalty towards science, it resembles a cult of religion.

[devilman666]

There's no empirical evidence that anything exists. How does that statement not make sense? If you think I am incorrect then go ahead and try to prove to me that something exists. You can pick anything you want, and then try to prove that it really does exist. It is what you were talking about, as you go on to say, you think religion and science are similar due to faith, I just pointed out that you need faith to believe that your own perception is real, you could be schizophrenic and everything you see/hear/feel could be a hallucination. In other words, everything requires some degree of faith/trust/belief/confidence that you are actually real and sane.

The difference is evidence. There is direct, empirical evidence supporting scientific theories, there is no direct, empirical evidence supporting any religion.

I agree that an undying loyalty towards science or any particular scientist is wrong. Can you prove that a large amount of people have undying loyalty towards scientists/science?

[ChefPapiChulo]

It’s not my job to disprove what you’re saying. Whatever it is that you’re saying.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Pure nonsense. From the start.

[ChefPapiChulo]

You said "we can prove science is real with empirical ( you spelt it wrong by the way) evidence." You are literally saying, we can prove the discovery, and study of things (which is what science is) with empirical evidence. That's pure nonsense and it sounds weird.

You can't prove science to be real, science is not in the business of proving things or disproving things. It's meant to explain the world around us.

You need to learn how to create an actual argument or make a coherent statement, because this...

"I hate to say it, but the Matrix could technically be reality, or we could be part of a dream some alien from another universe is having, therefore you can't even begin to prove anything without assuming things first. Now it might seem stupid for me to "assume" that I exist, but how do you prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt?"

is pure garbage.

[OfDeath]

Bro, don't worry about this chefpapichulo guy. He's just a pugnacious, insufferable moron who has no idea what he is talking about, yet somehow fancies himself as a skilled debater. For example he tried to tell me that trusting the scientific method is an argumentum ad consequentiam when it couldn't be further from it.
He just has some kind of vendetta against science for some reason. Maybe a doctor once gave him the wrong meds or something, I don't know.

The quotation of mine he posted in his update is also taking me out of context. In the next sentence after what he quoted, I actually explained the type of evidence I was talking about.
Anyway, I blocked him because I just don't have the time or the energy to deal with his level of stupidity.

[ChefPapiChulo]

@OfDeath You're just uneducated.

[ChefPapiChulo]

@OfDeath and i didn't say you believing in the scientific method as an argumentum ad consequentiam. You said

"And I'm telling you they're not in the same league as religious people at all because staunch advocates of the scientific method have a valid reason to be such. "

that they are staunch advocates have a valid reason to be such. Which is so poorly written my IQ drops every time i have to read it.

You're saying "they follow the scientific method because they have a reason to. The conclusion is based on whether or not its desirable.

You have poor writing skills, and equally poor logic skills.

[devilman666]

I'm not asking you to disprove anything, but rather to prove that what I'm saying is nonsense by proving something simple. Go ahead and try, nothing can be proven without assumption.

[devilman666]

You misquoted me by the way, I said, "we at least have direct impirical (I did infact mispell it) for the existence of science, and we can see the method that science/scientists use to find these answers (the scientific method)"

[devilman666]

Also that comment was a snarky jab at your God, we have evidence supporting science, we have none supporting your God.

[devilman666]

Look bruh, until you or somebody else can prove that something, anything, exists, then for all I know, this could be the matrix (very unlikely but technically possible)

[ChefPapiChulo]

It’s your drop to prove that nothing exist. That’s how it works.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I’m not arguing for God. You are not understanding anything and talking crazy.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Your job*

[ChefPapiChulo]

And what you’re kind of talking about is Karl popper’s theories. But not really cause you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Also. All I have to do is look in the mirror to see that I exist. Or look at my hands and feet. This is called inductive reasoning. I don’t need a million experiments to know that.

Now I don’t disagree with the matrix theory. But you’re not properly applying that either. And there’s no reason to be bringing it up. You and that retarded fella ofdeath are creating these arguments, trying to prove something that I never was trying to discuss.

I’m not against science. I’m against idiots who preach for science and preach against God. Often these people have no clue what they’re talking about on either side of the spectrum. They’re just blind followers of science.

I am also not preaching for religion and against science. Which I’ve said several times.

[devilman666]

It's not my job to prove that nothing exists, and even if it was, I've already admitted that I can't. What I said was that nothing can be proven to exist. Since nothing can be proven to exist, nothing can ever be proven, therefore proving nothing exists would be impossible by the very logic of the argument.

I've never heard of Karl Popper and honestly, I don't care, but I'd like to see you put in some effort so go ahead and tell me about the guy.

Have you ever heard of a hallucination before? Have you ever heard of a dream? How do you know the mirror isn't creating an illusion? How do you know that what you are seeing when you look into the mirror is actually real? You are correct that that is called inductive reasoning, but to get to that point, you have to assume that you both exist and are not insane.

Look, please don't call the matrix a "theory", it's a hypothesis at best and even then it doesn't stand up to scientific testing. We just can't falsify it because we don't know everything. My point with bringing up the matrix was to show one example of how your reality could be fake, your perception could be a hallucination or insanity, it could all be fake, it could be virtual, we don't know for sure and we probably never will. To understand whether or not we are real, we would need to prove how the universe came into existence... and in order to do that we would need to assume that we are real. It's a circular loop that can never prove anything, which is why it's better to assume we do exist rather than to get stuck on the question. However with that said, there is no proof we exist, we just have to assume it because as I've pointed out, there is no other realistic option.

What do you mean when you say, "preach for science"? What does that mean to you?

Do you agree with the evidence that points to a big bang or do you disagree with the conclusion scientists reached?

[ChefPapiChulo]

You’re talking nonsense.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ that nothing can be proven to exist. Since nothing can be proven to exist, nothing can ever be proven,”

That’s begging to be the question. It’s not logically sound.

Go read a fucking book dude. Stop spamming with your dumb shit.

[devilman666]

Basically, in order to be able to inductively reason anything, you need to assume that you can trust your senses and perceptions.

[ChefPapiChulo]

You're just saying some dumb shit that doesn't make any sense.

[devilman666]

It is logically sound, the soundness of it is the fact that nobody can prove anything with 100% certainty. You always have to assume something, and thus everything in life requires faith.

It's called "begging the question", and you would be correct. It is assuming that nothing can be proven, and therefore if I could prove it then I would simultaneously disprove it.

So basically, in order to prove that anything, including your perception, is real, you have to first assume that your perception is real. This is because you can only interact with things you can perceive with your five senses (IE, touch, smell, taste, see, hear), so if you are schizophrenic then proving that anything is real can be impossible. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder/disease which causes an affected person to be unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy. Therefore all 5 of your senses give you false information, therefore you can't trust your 5 senses, and therefore you can't reliably interact with anything. To make this make sense, put yourself in the shoes of a schizophrenic person, and try to prove to yourself that I am real and not just a hallucination. How does one prove that their perceptions are real and accurate? If your perception is wrong then there is no way to reason or deduce anything, because if your perception gives you false information then it could give you a false positive or a false negative, making anything and everything unreliable as evidence. You might see a person, and then reach out to touch them and fall right through, or you might touch what you percieve to be the other person, but actually be touching a wall and simply unable to realize the reality of the situation.

Also, will you explain Karl Popper to me?

[devilman666]

You're just calling it dumb shit because you don't want to think about it and admit the truth. Admittedly it seems most likely that our perceptions are correct, I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that everythong requires faith because you need to have faith that your eyes/brain aren't lying to you. If it's possible for perception to be wrong, then it's impossible to prove that perception is correct, because perception is the only way we can prove anything because we need perception in order to interact with things.

[ChefPapiChulo]

it's an invalid argument, and its not logically sound. You need to stop with this fucking nonsense, cause it's not making any sense. You're talking about schizophrenia, and how to them things aren't real. But most people are not schizophrenic, and the world is very real. You're using an extreme rarity to prove this crazy shit you're talking about. Like what the fuck are you on?

[ChefPapiChulo]

you're just talking crazy. You're not making valid, or logical arguments. There is inductive logic that is based on observation, instead of evidence. Which is what much of science is. But I don't feel like that's what you're talking about. Because you're just saying some weird shit that's hardly intelligible.

[devilman666]

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true."
I haven't given an argument in the proper form so this makes sense that it's not sound.
Premise 1: You need perception in order to evaluate any information, and therefore to prove that anything exists.
Premise 2: Perception can, for various reasons, be false or incorrect. You can perceive things that don't exist, not percieve things that do exist, and also experience altered versions (for example the room you are in starts bending. The room might be real but the perception of what's going on is altered as if you were in a dream).
Premise 3: if your perception is false then it's possible that you can't prove to yourself that your perception is false because your perception will always lie to you and tell you that your perception isn't false.
Conclusion: Therefore, if all these premises are true, then it is impossible to prove anything unless you assume that your perception is in line with reality. Proving the reality of your perception is impossible because you need to rely on your perception of reality to prove whether or not your perception of reality is real.

And you need to stop calling it fucking nonsense lol. That's still not an argument of any form, that's just an insult.

[ChefPapiChulo]

good we're in the right direction. but your logic is poor, and your argument is invalid. Its too confusing and contradicting.

[devilman666]

I am talking about schizophrenia, I'm glad your perception has allowed you to follow along, for a few minutes there I started thinking you couldn't actually read because all you were doing was calling me wrong and insulting me. It's called a HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT, have you ever heard of that word before? No? Google it!

Merriam-Webster: hypothetical:
not real : imagined as an example

My argument is meant to make you think about how perception can be false. From there you can (hopefully) place yourself in that scenario and try to figure out if and how you would be able to tell if your perception is false. The final goal is to get you to see that if you can't trust your perception then you can't believe in anything, therefore belief in anything requires the assumption that your perception is correct. It's an assumption because there is no way to prove your perception is correct, since you would need to assume your perception is correct in order to evaluate your own perception. It's like being blindfolded and asked to touch something, you can still feel it, but lets say I gave you a chemical or procedure which removes your ability to feel anything (including pain)? At that point, I could take your arm, place your hand on the object, and you would never notice because you never felt anything. But if I told you that I placed your hand on the object then you could tap it and hear the sound it produces despite being unable to feel it.

[ChefPapiChulo]

who are you arguing with? Are you insane?

[devilman666]

Lets say you were still blindfolded, so you couldn't see anything, drugged so you couldn't feel anything, a clothespin over the nose to stop smell, and lets say I removed your tongue so not taste either, and you were born deaf, so no hearing either. Now how do you tell anything about the object? How do you even tell that there is an object? You can't hear, smell, taste, feel, or see the object, how do you find evidence about the existence and nature of the object? Without perception there is no way to evaluate anything, and therefore if your perception is wrong then you have no way to know whether or not your perception is wrong. Therefore you can never know whether or not your perception is wrong, because there is always the possibility that everything you perceive is made up by your brain.

How do you know most people aren't schizophrenic? How do you know the world you experience (perceive) is real? How do you know your perceptions are real? You are assuming that your perception is in line with reality because that is the only reasonable choice, however that doesn't mean that it's really the only choice. It's simply that the other reality would be a living nightmare, and it's unreasonable to assume yourself to be crazy without good reason.

Can you explain how my argument is invalid and/or illogical?

It's hard for me to argue when you refuse to say anything of value. Maybe I'll follow suit and just repeatedly call you crazy until you shut up? Maybe I'll just stop, because you are not making this worth my time if you keep avoiding the argument all together.

[devilman666]

Myself clearly, and yes, I am insane. Somehow I thought you were a real person and not a troll, I must be Schizophrenic because my reality and perception were not in line. Have a great day, you poor ignorant dumbass.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

[devilman666]

No u

[devilman666]

Your crazy and ignorant and stupid and you'll never be smart and that's why you don't agree with me!!! Now get the fuck out of here with that nonsense of calling my nonsense nonsensical, you insensitive idiot!

[devilman666]

(If you can't tell, that last comment is mockery and sarcasm, meant to reflect your negative energy back at you)

[ChefPapiChulo]

Your argument is invalid because your premise which is all those things that you said doesn't conclude to your brain making everything up. And perception being made up. It just means you were blind, deaf, drugged, and couldn't taste. Everything being made up from our brains has nothing to do with your premise.

I know most people are schizophrenic because that's a medical term used for people who are very mentally ill. And most people do not deal with that. To assume reality is false because everyone could have schizophrenia, is not logical.

I'm not sure how you're able to come up with these things and think you're actually making any sense.

[ChefPapiChulo]

most people aren't schizophrenic*

[devilman666]

My conclusion was not that your brain makes everything up, but whatever. Keep lying and avoiding the argument bro. You can go back and reread what I wrote, I'm not repeating myself. Either you're being dishonest or you are incapable of understanding, in either case it's a waste of my time.

If you're really stuck on the schizophrenia bit then let go of that and remember that there are other things that can cause hallucinations, including drugs and hypothermia. I'm just using schizophrenia as a medical example of reality and perception not lining up, and then generalizing that to everyone in a "what if" scenario.

And if you're still stuck on "everyone would have to be schizophrenic" then here is a scary bit of truth for you, that's false, the only one who would need to be schizophrenic would be you. If your perception is false, then you could have a conversation with a tree, or a vase, or a lamp, and genuinely think that there is another person there who is talking to you.

To be clear, I'm not saying you are schizophrenic, but if you were then you'd potentially have no way of knowing that you were schizophrenic.

[ChefPapiChulo]

buddy, you're not arguing. You're just saying stupid shit. Look here is how you could have written your argument.

Our perception is created in the cerebral cortex of our brain. All senses are interpreted by our perception. So therefor, senses are are created in the cortex of our brain.
Now that is a logical argument. Whether its true or not, does not matter. But it is a valid argument.

Everything you've said up to this point is just so stupid. And you keep repeating over and over. I'm not interested in arguing with you.

[devilman666]

So you know you aren't schizophrenic because your senses tell you that you aren't? Who's begging the question now? If you were schizophrenic then you could have hallucinated what the word schizophrenic means.

I agree that assuming reality is false is illogical, I'm just pointing out that it's possible for your reality to be false, and therefore you must assume it isn't false. Without that assumption then we can't know anything for certain, and therefore we need to make assumptions in order to understand anything about reality. I assume that I am real and sane, because assuming otherwise without evidence would be illogical, and even worse, it could have an extreme negative impact on mental health. Assuming that my perception are in line with reality is also illogical, but without that assumption then I can't do anything but question my perception of reality.

Basically my argument from the start was that you need to make assumptions to prove that things are real, therefore science can't prove anything with 100% certainty because it assumes that the person making the observations was correct.

[devilman666]

That's not a logical argument, nor is it valid

[ChefPapiChulo]

You talking about schizophrenia isn't bothering me. You talking all of this stupid shit is frustrating to read because its an eye sore. I feel dumber each time i read something that you write. And somehow you think you're making sense of anything that you've written.

I've given you reasons why what you're saying is nonsense, I just gave you an example of a better way to create, whatever it is that you're trying to argue. I mean you can either take this as a lesson, and go read a book on logic and arguing, or you can keep talking nonsense like an insane person.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're nuts.

[devilman666]

If you want a real response:
Premise 1 is flawed because the evidence we have points to the parietal lobe being the part of the brain to interpret the senses, do you even know what the cerebral cortex is or did you say that to sound smart?

Cerebral cortex:
The cerebral cortex is a sheet of neural tissue that is outermost to the cerebrum of the mammalian brain. It has up to six layers of nerve cells. It is covered by the meninges and often referred to as gray matter.

For more info, go to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex

[ChefPapiChulo]

You're crazy man.

[devilman666]

You never gave me any reasons why any of what I said was nonsense. Do you know what a reason is or should I get the definition? To put it simply, calling my argument confusing does not count as a reason for anything. You could try to ask questions and try to understand if I am truly not making sense, but instead of investigating, you call it dumb and reject it without any logic or reason. It's clear you're being dishonest/disingenuous, though I can only assume why.

[ChefPapiChulo]

you're insane.

[devilman666]

Look fam, you're the one pretending that gray matter controls all 5 of our senses. Who's crazy? (by the way, gray matter isn't the same as the brain, the brain is partially constructed from gray matter but not fully, there is also white matter).

by the way, if I showed you an image of a brain, do you think you could point to the cerebral cortex? Where do you think it would it be?

[ChefPapiChulo]

bro go get on meds.

[devilman666]

Describe the cerebral cortex or I'm blocking you, I don't want to waste time with disingenuous losers, but I also want to make sure that you aren't just ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed if you are willing to have honest conversation/debate/argument, but it's impossible to argue with someone who refuses to honestly listen to what you say and/or honestly try to understand it, because at that point you're just arguing with yourself.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I can't help you buddy with whatever it is that you're struggling with. I'm only trying to explain the concept of logic to you. What you're talking about is just insane

[IAMNathanael]

I'd like to believe that God and science coexist. There's still many things we can't explain about science and God is the master of things we can't even begin to comprehend. His concept of time and space is greater than ours.

[ChefPapiChulo]

my issues are with idiots who are anti religious, because "they believe in science." Often cases, those same people don't even understand science enough to make hypothesis and theories.

[IAMNathanael]

My issue is both religious and anti religious sides bug me when all they can do is bash each other.

[Anonymous]

You are completely correct.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I was watching some scientific video and I heard the scientist say "trust in the science" and I was like "gee, where have I heard that before." Science is being heavily indoctrinated, and turning into a new religion. With idiot followers ready to do its every will.

[Opinion Owner]

Correct, and with every new discovery, reviewing of earlier "facts" considerably changes their understanding of those "facts". Suddenly they be like "erh, yeah, about that... We actually were wrong... But now we have full understanding." 10 or so years pass and voila-again same narrative. 🙄😂
Plus, there are legit phenomena on this world that CANNOT be explained by materialistic evidences but can if you take into account existence of spiritual sphere /world /realm that interferes with material, which is subordinate to it.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I feel like we're on the same page here somewhat. I'm mostly referring to a dogmatic view of what's right or wrong. And I think there's a notion that, even when a scientist is wrong, he's right because he's in the pursuit of learning. Which is what you covered, and I agree with what you said.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, it's mostly because academic world doesn't tolerate any spirituality. Our proffesir told us that even things that are 1000% PROVEN by material background, cannot enter the mainstream if they don't fit the narrative that has already been set by previous explorers. He said true scientists have great fear of losing their name, reputation, careers, if they discover something that doesn't fit in into "mainstream science". No matter how grand their expertise were, (this kind of people indeed do have open mind and wouldn't say such a narrow and shallow thing like "Believe in science" for that even doesn't mean anything on it's own) - these people always have to be afraid of academic world shutting them off if they discover something "innapropriate". If you can imagine. 😒