Is Science Just Another Belief System?

[Rade]

We all know that the Cosmic Mickey Mouse controls everything. I will predict that by the will of the Cosmic Mickey Mouse...

Here is where your argument fails from its basic premise. I would like to point out that this is usually the place where all logically false arguments fail, by putting forth a false basic premise. In the above, only Micky can know internal to his mouseness that he controls everything, "we" (that is, humans) cannot "know" with certainty anything about the powers of Micky. Second, while you may predict the outcome of Micky's will, it cannot be tested using the scientific method (that is, you would really have to bring Micky before me and let him show me his powerful "will"...and no, it is not good enough to send me the book he wrote about his power...good enough for "faith" but not for "science"). Yet note that the Law of Gravity is tested and verified each and every moment of every day somewhere on the earth. So, I just cannot see the point of your argument.

 

[Rade]

Faith is the ability humans have to believe more than they can know. Since knowing anything with absolute certainty is impossible, I would have to say yes. Science is a system of faith. It is however faith based on a very high percentage of certainty.

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more" information than you can pack into your brain than what you can "know" via the scientific method. That is, you have taken a quantum jump one step above knowledge, and that step is called faith based believe.
But, what is the point of this argument, other than to show me that you in fact do not "know" that hell exists (since by your definition faith goes one step past knowing), and all I can say is wow, because this is something as a scientist that I would never attempt...e.g. to "know" or "not know" via the scientific method that hell exists. Do you thus see the unintended consequences of this faith based approach you take ? It logically requires that you go around telling people that you "do not know" that hell exists (since your mind operates one step above knowledge), so you will want to be very quiet on this topic when in church, folks will just not understand.
Now your second sentence is just logically false. You cannot reach a logical conclusion that "science is faith based" because it is based on "uncertain knowledge". Please read my post above to Royce:
faith = believe without proof
science = knowledge without proof
therefore
science is not faith (believe) based, science is based on knowledge.

 

[Skyhunter]

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more" information than you can pack into your brain than what you can "know" via the scientific method. That is, you have taken a quantum jump one step above knowledge, and that step is called faith based believe.
But, what is the point of this argument, other than to show me that you in fact do not "know" that hell exists (since by your definition faith goes one step past knowing), and all I can say is wow, because this is something as a scientist that I would never attempt...e.g. to "know" or "not know" via the scientific method that hell exists. Do you thus see the unintended consequences of this faith based approach you take ? It logically requires that you go around telling people that you "do not know" that hell exists (since your mind operates one step above knowledge), so you will want to be very quiet on this topic when in church, folks will just not understand.
Now your second sentence is just logically false. You cannot reach a logical conclusion that "science is faith based" because it is based on "uncertain knowledge". Please read my post above to Royce:
faith = believe without proof
science = knowledge without proof
therefore
science is not faith (believe) based, science is based on knowledge.

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

 

[Rade]

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

There are two ways to know any "thing": (1) from inside the thing, (2) from outside the thing. You, and only you, can know absolutely that "you exist"...see the thread on this discussion. But, there is "absolutely" nothing you can "know" outside yourself, you can come pretty close, but I do not see how any human can have absolute knowledge of that which is external to the consciousness.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Knowledge is not absolute. Therefore you cannot know anything absolutely.

This is true my friend, knowledge is quite the illusion... the more you know, the more you realize you don't know; the more you don't know, the more you realize you know what the truth is. ;) But isn't that better than thinking you know it all?!(religion, laws of physics[another religion]) Stagnant knowledge is not my craze. I'm a human being(i think)... I'm curious. I want to learn, not be told. But perhaps, it would be quite ironic if that was religions purpose all along.

 

[Moneer81]

Here is where your argument fails from its basic premise. I would like to point out that this is usually the place where all logically false arguments fail, by putting forth a false basic premise. In the above, only Micky can know internal to his mouseness that he controls everything, "we" (that is, humans) cannot "know" with certainty anything about the powers of Micky. Second, while you may predict the outcome of Micky's will, it cannot be tested using the scientific method (that is, you would really have to bring Micky before me and let him show me his powerful "will"...and no, it is not good enough to send me the book he wrote about his power...good enough for "faith" but not for "science"). Yet note that the Law of Gravity is tested and verified each and every moment of every day somewhere on the earth. So, I just cannot see the point of your argument.

well all I did here is I constructed a hypothesis, and tested it and it worked. And actually, it turns out that the will of the almighty Cosmic Mickey Mouse will determine how objects fall everywhere and at anytime. Thousdans of experiments have been constructed and they all obey the prediction that Cosmic Mickey Mouse's will causes them to fall downwards. This theory has never been proven wrong to date.

Now how is the law of gravity more credible than my theory ?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

It is no different... And I have proved this in S&D... Only to be called a "speculative pedestrian"... like I don't know anything about physics or something. Don't go against the physics Bible or it's just like going against a Religions Bible... I now know the argument here. Get too smart and question, and be outcast. There are many ways to look at things, and everyone wants to have power in this world... so as humanity we continue to get stuck every time an advancement is made because everyone acts selfishly as if they are the all knowing Gods of the world and forget to be neutral with their fellow humans... Hence the 13% warning... I am being punished for proving that physics is not complete... quite funny :) I'm just going to stop believing in everything, move to an island away from all of humanity, and become the greatest inventor ever, and burn all my methods so they never fall into the hands of selfish primates. Please read it in S&D, it is a prime example.. and please note the moderators quotes under his last message... contradicting eh... ohhh, the things power and knowledge will make a human do. Science has no place for emotions, or it begins to turn into a religion.

 

[Royce]

?! and explain to me how is this a false God??

I used the term "false God" as an ironic metaphor in line with my view point that Science just like all human knowledge is faith based as nothing is 100% proven and we know nothing absolutely and we take others words, work and teachings on faith as we cannot do the work or verification ourselves.

Post # 86--------------------------------------------------------------------
Until religion can prove science wrong, i don't see the argument here. Science and reasoning (not to mention your eyes and the ability to see the night sky) prove religion wrong...

The highlighted statement is absolutely false as science does not and cannot properly address religion. Science is physical and religion is metaphysical. Nor is Christianity the only religion. This is why I sited your post as a prime example.

 

[Royce]

Until recently, your sequence (but not your logic about predictability) above was what I held to be true. However, on page 11 of Eugenie Scott's book "evolution vs creationism" (2004) is found the following:

MOST IMPORTANT
Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts
LEAST IMPORTANT​

I don't think that I can accept this. Maybe its just that I am too old and this is too new, like the new math being used by banks, credit card companies, mortgage companies and insurance companies etc.

IMHO it has in the past been facts, data gathered verified and tested that, was and is the most important and the starting point from which speculation or a hypotheses would be formed to explain the data collected. Then from the hypotheses tests, experiments and predictions would be formulated to test the hypotheses. Once successfully tested against all relevant data available, a theory might be formed. If the theory contained parts that were shown to be supported by mathematics and experiment it might then become named a Law.

I never have been very clear about Laws. Why some things remain theories such as electron theory in electricity and electronics Where it always (well almost always) works that way. It has logical and mathematical solutions that are verifiable and constant and electronics theory has Laws within it yet is still only a theory. But, I digress.

Anyway facts and data have always been the basis for all scientific theory and hypotheses.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Faith is the ability humans have to believe more than they can know. Since knowing anything with absolute certainty is impossible, I would have to say yes. Science is a system of faith. It is however faith based on a very high percentage of certainty.
[edit] Science is not dogmatic. It's conclusions are subject to change when new data is discovered. [/edit]

That is only true of what science can study directly such as the functioning of various physical processes and the interaction of chemicals. Study of the distant past or distant areas of the universe involve too little data or unknown reliability to provide any degree of certainty.

Stephen Hawking demonstrated how a real scientist works a year or two ago. He had previously stated that he believed that information could not escape from a black hole. He reversed his opinion and suggested that some information might be able to escape. Unfortunately, many others in the field aren't open to changing their views.

 

[reasonmclucus]

OK, as to your first sentence, suppose you believe with faith that hell exists, clearly, according to your definition this is "more"

I know it exists because I spent 11 months there. You call it Vietnam.

 

[-Job-]

I know it exists because I spent 11 months there. You call it Vietnam.

Of course in that case you sent yourself there.

 

[Son Goku]

I don't know about others, but I for one begin to find these kind of arguements pointless after a while.

"Nothing can be 100% proven", "Physics is incomplete".
The only response I have to these kind of statements is to just shrug my shoulders.

I can't prove the computer I'm typing at exists, but the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt or indeed sensible doubt, so I don't care.
It's a similar case for physics.
Sure Newtonian Gravity is just simplified case of General Relativity, but it can still tell me things, it can still predict things.
So again it's immaterial to me. I'll use General Relativity when I need to.

Similarly General Relativity breaks down inside black holes and at the quantum mechanical level.
Sure that's a gap in the theory, but so what. It has shown itself to be valid in its intended region and I'll comfortably use it there and take what it says as correct. There is a chance that it's wrong, but again it isn't within reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to physics as a religion or that physicists use physics as a religion to gain authority.
This is just a boring "postmodern" thought that comes up again and again.

Take somebody who proposes that the speed of light isn't constant.
They'll be told why it is constant from a theoretical basis due to special relativity and the evidence for it.
At which point they'll respond with "You priestly physicists and your holy special relativity can never be wrong can they?" and the person will go away convinced that physicists are dogmatic.

However they miss the point that coming on to a forum and saying "The speed of light isn't constant" isn't much of a physical arguement.
All a physicist can do with it is say that all evidence and theory thus far say otherwise.
Physicists will argue for current theories not because they are dogmatic, but because they're the theories the evidence supports.
I think people forget that physics or science in general isn't a debate where the most logically water-tight reasoning wins out. It's about making models from assumptions or principles and then seeing if that model holds out under experimentation. So if you say the speed of light isn't constant, physicists aren't being arrogant by arguing against it.
They're just quoting what nature has said so far.

Stephen Hawking demonstrated how a real scientist works a year or two ago. He had previously stated that he believed that information could not escape from a black hole. He reversed his opinion and suggested that some information might be able to escape. Unfortunately, many others in the field aren't open to changing their views.

Some people will belong to side A on an issue and some people will belong to side B on an issue and some will move between A and B until the issue is resolved, that isn't being closed minded though. Physics has shown that when there is enough evidence the majority of physicists will move over to the hypothesis that is experimentally supported.

As well, there may be some bias here as to what is being viewed as physics. People are only discussing the "sexy" areas of physics.
Are the Fluid Dymanics physicists anymore arrogant for holding on to the Navier Stokes equation than Relativists are for holding onto Einstein's theories?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Yeah and up 'till 500 years ago the Earth was flat, and God was controlling the weather, because that's what was proven at the time... yes it is dogmatic. Think ahead and beyond... and we'll progress as a race.. otherwise we're stuck here with our oil embargos.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Scientists are the most important people in the world... They should view themselves as a family. I'm saddened to always see it the other way around. Don't we become scientists to make things better? Right now we're having wars, and we're addicted to oil... We need to start questioning things in order to move forward. If there is one thing wrong about a law or a theory, then in my eyes the whole thing is wrong (sure it might be fine for it's intended purposes still, which I'd have no problem with keeping those theories the way they are) Just as if there is one thing wrong in a religion... that's what led me to stop believing.. there's so many things wrong about it's history, and the way it has been manipulated for power, the "conversion" factor now days, that has taken away from it's true intents and purposes, which was the message of love.. sometimes you just have to leave things and do it on your own, because you know what is right and what isn't. Do you go around wearing shirts with holes in them? I don't want to go around wearing a shirt that says scientist, and it explains GR and SR and every 5 letters there's a hole in it because it doesn't apply to all scenarios.

 

[Son Goku]

Yeah and up 'till 500 years ago the Earth was flat, and God was controlling the weather, because that's what was proven at the time... yes it is dogmatic. Think ahead and beyond... and we'll progress as a race.. otherwise we're stuck here with our oil embargos.

And?
"Think ahead and we'll move on as a race", well great, but this stuff is hard.
We aren't moving slow because we're dogmatic it's because it's hard plain and simple.
And the example of the Earth being flat is just lame. It was the opinion of certain people, in fact was even commonly thought, in the Middle Ages that the Earth was flat and neither it nor the fact that God controlled the weather was proven. The problem with medieval europe was that knowledge systems weren't empirically based.
You can't compare Middle Age European beliefs with modern science.
It's fine to "think beyond and ahead" that they speed of light may be broken or not constant, but if nature keeps continously saying differently why should we diverge from that until there is some evidence to say otherwise.

Do you go around wearing shirts with holes in them? I don't want to go around wearing a shirt that says scientist, and it explains GR and SR and every 5 letters there's a hole in it because it doesn't apply to all scenarios.

You're saying this like nobody is trying, why do you think people are working on Quantum Gravity.
There is something wrong with General Relativity at the Planck Scale, which is why physicists are working on the next step, but it's taking a long time, not because they're dogmatic, but because it's hard.
General Relativity has never made an incorrect prediction or being falsified in any observation, same for Special Relativity, I think the fact that effort is being put into a model that has always worked is evidence of how non-dogmatic physics is.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Yeah and up 'till 500 years ago the Earth was flat, and God was controlling the weather, because that's what was proven at the time... yes it is dogmatic. Think ahead and beyond... and we'll progress as a race.. otherwise we're stuck here with our oil embargos.

Now many who call themselves scientists claim that humans control climate with the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Have we really progressed in 500 years?

 

[reasonmclucus]

Take somebody who proposes that the speed of light isn't constant.
They'll be told why it is constant from a theoretical basis due to special relativity and the evidence for it.
At which point they'll respond with "You priestly physicists and your holy special relativity can never be wrong can they?" and the person will go away convinced that physicists are dogmatic.
However they miss the point that coming on to a forum and saying "The speed of light isn't constant" isn't much of a physical arguement.
All a physicist can do with it is say that all evidence and theory thus far say otherwise.

Actually there is evidence that the speed of light and other "constants" may be changing.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

 

[Son Goku]

Now many who call themselves scientists claim that humans control climate with the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Have we really progressed in 500 years?

Yes.

Actually there is evidence that the speed of light and other "constants" may be changing.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_010815.html"

My point is still the same, Physicists don't claim the speed of light is constant because they are dogmatic or because they want their theories to be correct (in fact I think the reverse is true, anybody would jump on the idea to update relativity), but because it is currently more supported by evidence than the alternative.
In relation to that article though:

Murphy, Flambaum and Webb expected zero and found a very small, but statistically significant effect. These researchers hasten to add that the effect is small, is observed only in the very young universe (and is therefore not in disagreement with other determinations of a in more recent times). They also stress that the results are so unexpected that they really call for a replication by other, independent researchers using independent data from the same era. Nevertheless, their work is a tantalising hint that the laws of Nature might change on cosmological time scales or distances. It is interesting to speculate, for instance, that they might have changed somewhat in the very early universe, when some seriously weird things seem to have happened, but have stabilised early on. But that is speculation.

Although this only dates to 2002, I don't have any information on what research has gone into this result in the last three years.
From what I've read it has been suggested that it is possible that coupling constants were significantly different back then due to higher energies, which would give different values for other constants.
I don't know much about Quantum Field Theory, so I couldn't guess at the validity of these claims.

 

[TheUnknown]

Yes.
My point is still the same, Physicists don't claim the speed of light is constant because they are dogmatic or because they want their theories to be correct (in fact I think the reverse is true, anybody would jump on the idea to update relativity), but because it is currently more supported by evidence than the alternative.QUOTE]

Then why don't they start jumping on ideas? You don't gain evidence by settling for the current evidence.

"You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created the problem in the first place"--Albert Einstein.

 

[Son Goku]

Then why don't they start jumping on ideas? You don't gain evidence by settling for the current evidence.

They have started jumping on ideas.
They aren't settling for current evidence, it's just that that is what the evidence is saying so far.
And jumping one new ideas won't make you gain evidence at all. The evidence will arrive independantly.
It's not like we will get evidence which contradicts the the constancy of light only when we begin investigating the theory behind it.

 

[loseyourname]

Just to note, guys (most of you seem to get this anyway), this forum isn't meant for critiquing the actions of scientists. It's meant for discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of science and mathematics, which can include methodology, the logic involved, and the history of how these things developed. If you're going to claim dogmatism, then you need to link that somehow to the scientific method or its justification. If you're simply going to claim that science as an institution is dogmatic (or anything else), that really isn't a philosophical discussion and belongs in social sciences, as it is a social phenomenon.

 

[TheUnknown]

What's the problem lose? We're discussing the philosophy of science and religion, (mostly science now) and their logic, the only way to do that is to include the methods. If the methods seem dogmatic. I'm just going to say it, I do have freedom of speech on this subject right? I am backing it up by stating the way science stops at every bump and begins to worship instead of move forward, and how hard it is for those who try to move forward because of the religious comparison.

 

[WhiteWolf]

lol, although I think you have a point, I can see loseyourname's concern. I had a forum (still do, but I have a serious lack of membership) and have of the members were idiots that called people dumb***es for disagreeing with them. Then when I talked to them about it, they were all like, "I have freedom of speech, I can say whatever I want." So I believe their should be a certain degree of control on content, yes?

 

[TheUnknown]

Sure, but there is no one here cussing. That analysis was a bit off course. We aren't calling each other dumb****'*. I say, let the members have a discussion if they are having a healthy discussion, there's no problem here. Afterall this is a "Help" forum, an internet website where people can come together and discuss ideas and views, it wasn't a monarchy last time I checked, but who knows!

 

[reasonmclucus]

What's the problem lose? We're discussing the philosophy of science and religion, (mostly science now) and their logic, the only way to do that is to include the methods. If the methods seem dogmatic. I'm just going to say it, I do have freedom of speech on this subject right? I am backing it up by stating the way science stops at every bump and begins to worship instead of move forward, and how hard it is for those who try to move forward because of the religious comparison.

The problem isn't with empirical science, but with human scientists. Perhaps if there are really Vulcan scientists they might change their opinions with the presentation of new evidence. Some humans in the sciences make the mistake of stopping after they learn things one way and don't want to move on to new ideas. In some cases it may be because they don't have a separate set of religious beliefs that are constant.

Religion has definite truths. Science is a search for the truth. Like the frog who can only jump halfway to his final destination, scientists approach the complete truth but don't quite get there. Increases in knowledge can lead to more questions as well as some answers.

 

[alfredblase]

This is really confusing. I think the point is there are certain things we can predict with very high probability, and that is very useful and comforting. If the human race had no concept of "physics" emm we wouldn't be discussing this on this forum, which would be a great shame in my opinion, meaning that we wouldn't have the internet and so couldn't download cool music and books and stuff. Or wouldn't we? Perhaps the internet could have been invented by trial and error with no concepts with which to predict the way it could work, (optical fibre technology and such, Electromagnetism etc etc...), but probably not... more examples? I'm sure there are countless positive things that could not have been achieved without physics "knowledge", although there are probably many more positive things that could be achieved if the human race in general were to apply some of the true christian principles, like caring and sharing.

 

[Hitokiriilh]

On Hume's Problem of Induction and the Original Topic

Hume's problem of induction, which with regards to science effectively rules out the principle of the uniformity of nature and restricts how general a theory can be, itself has problems. I'd like to point out a situation in which the problem of induction fails:

Einstein postulated in his general theory of relativity that space-time behaves like a differentiable manifold. This was a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless and deserved to be tested. Well, it has been, and since general relativity has been verified to ridiculous extents, it has been confirmed that, at least over all observed regions of space and time, space-time has the properties of a differentiable manifold. Thus, the regions that behave like a differentiable manifold should obey the rules of differential geometry. In differential geometry, geometric equations inherit a property called covariance - a geometric equation (such as something that relates a vector to some other vector) expressible in a covariant form in one coordinate system in a region on a differentiable manifold will have the same algebraic form in any other coordinate system and at any other point on the manifold.

Let's bring this over to the laws of physics. If we can express a law in a covariant way, then, since space-time acts as a differentiable manifold, the law should be good over all space and all time.

But wait! What if there is some strange and sudden discontinuity in space-time and it no longer behaves as a differentiable manifold? Well if that happens, then it's no longer the same space-time we've come to know and love. So to this end, how much sense to it make to say "at this point in time, time is no longer time" or "at this point in space, space is no longer space?" None. To refer to a point in time, we need a time coordinate; to say at that coordinate time is no longer time means that we can't refer to that coordinate since it can't be a time coordinate.

I feel like this gives plenty of motivation to accept the principle of uniformity of nature and ought to make one question Hume's problem of induction. Furthermore, it shows how through the immutable power of mathematics, a theory can be confirmed, not just facets of it. With regards to experimental falsification, if a facet of a theory is confirmed, certain mathematical requirements may demand that many other facets of the theory be correct (if a vibrating string is discovered to obey the wave equation over some region, then the endpoints of the region that obeys the equation MUST have one of the two boundary conditions admitted by the equation, otherwise the region CAN'T be described by the equation).

Now, on to the original problem with the friend.
So, "what if gravity is just God's will?" I like your response: that's just giving gravity another name. No matter what the "metaphysical" cause is, it still happens, it's still mathematically modeled, it's still covariant, and it's therefore still a good physical law. I know some physicists who say that if there is a god, then it's nothing more than nature. This gets into another topic which I wish to avoid, but my point is if your friend is going to argue such a thing, then it has no physical consequence...I would imagine an all powerful being should get bored by moving stuff all the time, though. :)

I read someone's earlier post discussing that crackpot reformed physicst, Thomas Kuhn (I refer to him as such simply because his book is misleading. One can hardly say that the science of the middle ages, Ptolemy, and the Greeks compares to the method used today - namely now we require evidence). I believe Kuhn's point that there was a paradigm shift between Newton and Einstein and that the explanations and equations for gravity between them differ was brought up. I want to say, if I may, that this is bull****. :) The correspondance principle isn't applied to just quantum mechanics, it's a generally good principle. The same variables in Newton's equations DO appear in Einstein's! Mass isn't a relativistically important quantity, so it was generalized to energy density. The energy density isn't covariant, so it was generalized to the stress-energy tensor. You can see in the non-relativistic limit that the energy density becomes mass density and the spatial components of the stress-energy tensor vanish. Taking the weak-field limit and describing space as flat space with a slight perturbation produces Poisson's equation for Newtonian gravity, an embodiment of Newton's laws. True, Newton's space was flat, but in the weak field limit, space is generally treated as flat with the gravitational potential (the perturbation to flat space) kept the same as Newton's. There was no change, and Newtonian equations and modes of thought are STILL valid in the appropriate limit.
I would then like to say that GOOD theories aren't replaced, they're generalized. The generalizations always reproduce the special theory in the appropriate limits and circumstances.

 

[Tsunami]

While theories about science like Kuhn's may be interesting for history or sociology, I fail to see why they can be interesting for science.

People blamed Popper for focusing merely on ideas to better develop science ; eh, isn't that the whole point? I was wondering, have there been other philosophers after Popper who focused on the process of discovering good scientific theories?

 

[rewebster]

Interesting thread --(even though it seems to have many variations in other threads)

Some things I see:

from post 87 is that there is a difference in the definitions of #1 and #2

post 98 is good---and logical

and 118 too.


I see the discussion more from a viewpoint of invention:

(observations>hypothesis>results>theory>conclusion)

[a thinking process where the 'conclusion' is the end of a thought until the very next input/observation]



What anyone 'knows' is what one of their fives senses has told them, even a schizophrenic going through a delusional state of hallucination (on one end of the scale) to a moment of lucidity (Archimedes).

Faith (or some other similar word having about the same definition, not the religious definition) has to start somewhere, and it may be the beginning of science long ago.


E.g.---The caveman stuck his toe in the water. The water was cold. He pulled his toe out of the water. He stuck his toe back in the water. The water was still cold. He pulled it back out again. He did this several more times. -----Now, how many times would he have had to stick his toe in the water to come to the realization that the water was cold at THAT time on THAT day. And would (and when) he somehow realize that on a hot summer day (it may have been a winter day in the first scenario) that the water would be warm? Would he have also thought about grabbing a rock that was in a fire?


Within a given set having a large enough variable base, there is and will be extremes. When was the very first time that someone attributed a sensory input to a 'higher power'? When did that 'higher power' get a 'following'? When were other sensory inputs attributed to that 'higher power'? ---(And I don't mean 'a diety' specifically here)





For me, here's the tricky part to think about:


At what level of consciousness/belief (their accumulated knowledge of what they have come to know and experience), do they tell themselves:

"I am going to stop thinking about all other possibilities of 'what and why' something happens, and relate all my new experiences on what I know right now." ---(And I don't mean 'a diety' specifically here, either)




Even in this sub-set there's probably a bell shaped curve, so some may want to learn 'some things' and others won't.

Then,
(observations>hypothesis>results>theory>conclusion)


can be written for those:


[observations>(someone else's/an earlier)hypothesis>(someone else's/an earlier)results>(someone else's/an earlier)theory>(someone else's/an earlier)conclusion]





(IMHO, as another chit-chatter hanging usually at the ol' office quantum well--hmm, some cold water does sound good right about now)

 

[rewebster]

post 127 was inspiring (THE reason for the 135 post)