On 9/14/2012 4:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There are different kinds of beliefs. The believer that has no strong
evidences, know that he believe. He know that he believe.
The second kind of believer does not know that he believe, because he
live in a environment where the evidences are uncontested in the
environment where he lives. For example a islamic comunity may find
unthinkable that the Koran is not truth word by word. In the same way,
positivists 100 years ago could find unthinkable to question the law
of newtonian gravitation or the superiority of the white race
according with the anthropological scientists of his time.
These second kind of believers are the true believers.
These "true believers" seem to hav a filtering system such that
they never notice data that would contradict what which they hold to be
true. This is like a "nocebo" effect
"Science" is a doxastic concept. it is too imprecise to be used in a
serious talk about philosophical concepts, such is the concept of
Umm, I would say that you are considering "scientism" the "true
belief" in science as having explanations of "everything" such that if
science does not (currently!) have an explanation some some phenomena,
then the phenomena is not real.
If you mean science as the scientific method by the criteria of
falsabilty, then science is not a criterium of truth, but a criterium
Agreed! "if you cannot be wrong then you cannot be correct either."
Not even that, because it does not states what is
non-truth now. Simply, is a method to decide it in the future if we
follow that method, and this is not guaranteed, because it is simply a
method. It is not a criteria.
Therefore, true science is perpetual scepticism.
Umm, this is too much like Hume's methodology. One must allow for
speculation and conjecture as "possibly true" until refuted for oneself.
The burden of proof is always on the proposer of a conjecture.
A follower of the
scientific method can not even discard that the myth of the virgin
Mary is true. On the contrary, positivism, or scientism, is a
perversion around the institution of science. It is a belief system of
the second kind. Its founder, Auguste Compte wanted it to be a
state-promoted religion. And it is.
2012/9/14 Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would
identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition
is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them
as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things
that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The
mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism
for example.. There are many things that were "scientific" in the past
"race studies" for example. Now there are "gender studies"... they
were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope
that this is clarifying.
Global warming may turn out to be wrong, but it is not a myth. It is
based on evidence and the evidence is debated.
The "evidence" has strong indications of being manipulated for the
purpose of a political agenda. The way that the sensors are distributed
and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy We do
not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict
the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their
The virgin birth of
Jesus, however, is completely different. It is not based on any
evidence, because it is a matter of "faith". Believers are actually
proud of the fact that they have no evidence for it, will not change
their mind (even in principle) if evidence against it arises, and
there is hence no point arguing with them. Even worse, believers are
inconsistent: they will dismiss other peoples' equivalent
evidence-free beliefs as bullshit without a second thought.
I agree with Stathis here. Faith, it is has any meaning can only be
forward looking in the sense that it is a belief that some theory will
not be falsified in the future. To have faith in some theory that
considers something in the past that contradicts facts in the present is
an invocation of "special circumstances" that are somehow "unique". I
argue strongly against such as this idea is a form of "White Rabbit". It
is, if true, an local inconsistency that somehow is not pathological.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at