Unfair stereotype statement from David

[fitzbew88]

I recalled the JAL1628 incident from memory, and botched two details, as you correctly noted. The second passenger plane was a United flight, not British Airways. The military plane, codenamed TOTEM, was in flight already, and not scrambled. The other details are accurate. Here's where everyone can read a little more on it, though Stanton Friedman has some additional information somewhere on his website. The link connects interested readers to a lengthy report by Bruce Maccabee.

The Fantastic Flight of JAL1628

The other flight (United) did not confirm the sighting, the United pilots saw nothing. The JAL flight was in Alaska, not near it. The military plane TOTEM 71 I do not think was a jet, I think it was something like a C-130. (However, I cannot find my source for that.) Its pilots also saw nothing.

 

[interestedINitall]

Human vanity will be our undoing... worship at the alters of science or religion, just make sure you choose ONE, republican or democrat, black or white, gay or straight, dope smoker or drinker, choose a box and squeeze into it, otherwise your opinion is meaningless. What a load - as if reality was a binary concept. Dead or alive, no in-between.

NOTHING is that clear and defined. Nothing. Believe what you want. Chances are, everything you know is wrong.

Or not.

dB

I like this bit. It reads like a Daily Show spin on nihilism.

 

[CapnG]

And no, in my analogy I have no reason to suspect a fox other than my chickens are disappearing and I suspect foxes around. My faith in the culpability of the fox is not comparable to faith in the religious sense.

That cannot be true. If you SUSPECT a fox you must have a REASON upon which to found that suspicion. Otherwise you're just guessing.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

The other flight (United) did not confirm the sighting, the United pilots saw nothing. The JAL flight was in Alaska, not near it. The military plane TOTEM 71 I do not think was a jet, I think it was something like a C-130. (However, I cannot find my source for that.) Its pilots also saw nothing.

There's no clear information that it was a C-130. The JAL flight started the sighting in Alaska, and the sighting continued over water.

I guess we can go round and round like this, or just let folks read the report I tried to recall from memory. Teaches me.

 

[DBTrek]

No, they're not. If they were hard to doubt, I'd be living today in the belief that there was a pterodactyl making its home in Granville, Ohio, circa 1977.

You had the benefit of someone showing you a buzzard after you believed you had seen a pterodactyl. Would you have doubted what you had seen intrinsically if there were no buzzards to be seen when your dad took you out?

Furthermore, if you want to be an absolute stickler for evidence, you can't prove it was a buzzard and not a pterodactyl that you saw. You have faith that since there was a buzzard to be seen a day later, and no pterodactyls to be seen, you must have seen a buzzard. There was no analog for science in that anecdote.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

You had the benefit of someone showing you a buzzard after you believed you had seen a pterodactyl. Would you have doubted what you had seen intrinsically if there were no buzzards to be seen when your dad took you out?

It wasn't my dad, it was my neighbor, and after seeing the bird, it was clear that a buzzard is what I saw. Big wingspan, dark, oily brown in color, long neck, nasty-looking tail - I saw a buzzard. I appreciate my neighbor calmly and kindly helping me realize what I saw, but I'm sure with the passage of time and a few years of maturity under my belt I probably wouldn't long have labored under the delusion that a pterodactyl lived in Granville.

Furthermore, if you want to be an absolute stickler for evidence, you can't prove it was a buzzard and not a pterodactyl that you saw. You have faith that since there was a buzzard to be seen a day later, and no pterodactyls to be seen, you must have seen a buzzard. There was no analog for science in that anecdote.

Nonsense. Critical thinking depends upon a reasonable appraisal of the evidence at hand. What was more reasonable to believe? That a pterodactyl family found a way to survive tens of millions of years, safe and secure in an enclave in Granville, Ohio, without anyone else ever having seen it, or found its eggs, or found a carcass, or heard its cries? Or that my imagination and infatuation with dinosaurs led me to believe that the large, disgusting, gliding animal overhead was a buzzard - a buzzard plainly visible, also gliding around, also brown in color, also with a long neck, also with what appeared to be something of a tail, also with its feet tucked underneath it? What seems more reasonable to you, particularly in light of the fact that there are no other birds of that size that frequent central Ohio?

Pterodactyls don't exist anymore. Buzzards do. I came to a informed decision based on critical thinking and examination of the evidence at hand. I had to have an adult help me, but I got there.

The fellow who started the "Satellites?" thread first checked for a possible prosaic, rational explanation for what he reported seeing. A known, provable, physical object of human manufacture can do precisely what he saw the object do, and frequently appears at the time and place he reported seeing this object. The observer came to the conclusion that a known object is what he probably saw, since those things are known to exist.

Now, it could have been Jean-Luc Picard picking up Data from shore leave, but that's unlikely. It might have been a Romulan warbird, or one of Billy Meier's correspondents. Since there is absolutely no hard evidence that we are being contacted by aliens, the observer in the "Satellites?" thread discarded the unlikely for the likely. There is evidence that some UFOs are physical objects that sometimes leave physical traces behind, but an object that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck is a duck.

Or a buzzard.

 

[DBTrek]

Critical thinking depends upon a reasonable appraisal of the evidence at hand.

We agree.

What was more reasonable to believe?

'Reasonable to believe' requires no hard evidence.

What seems more reasonable to you, particularly in light of the fact that there are no other birds of that size that frequent central Ohio?

It seems more reasonable to me that you saw a buzzard. Reasoned faith is still faith. Science is falsifiable. Nothing in the described encounter could be tested for falsifiability.

The fellow who started the "Satellites?" thread first checked for a possible prosaic, rational explanation for what he reported seeing. A known, provable, physical object of human manufacture can do precisely what he saw the object do, and frequently appears at the time and place he reported seeing this object. The observer came to the conclusion that a known object is what he probably saw, since those things are known to exist.

Exactly. He has achieved a reasoned faith in the matter.

Since there is absolutely no hard evidence that we are being contacted by aliens, the observer in the "Satellites?" thread discarded the unlikely for the likely.

Yes. He has deduced that some explainations are far more likely than others. Scientifically he still has nothing. Not trying to nit pick, just pointing out the difference between deductive reasoning and science. One of them still requires faith, though it is easy to lose sight of this. The other is falsifiable and testable. Little in the UFO field falls in to the science category, making the application of science to Ufoology an exercise in frustration.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

'Reasonable to believe' requires no hard evidence.

The very phrase "reasonable to believe" means that reason has been used, and the exercise of reason requires evidence. Why is this so difficult to understand?

It seems more reasonable to me that you saw a buzzard. Reasoned faith is still faith. Science is falsifiable. Nothing in the described encounter could be tested for falsifiability.

Faith and reason are separate, and incompatible.

Exactly. He has achieved a reasoned faith in the matter.

No, he has arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on evidentiary probabilities. This has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. Faith depends on no reason at all - in fact, faith is esteemed because it is practiced even though all reason opposes it. Reason and faith are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. They do not coincide.

Yes. He has deduced that some explainations are far more likely than others. Scientifically he still has nothing. Not trying to nit pick, just pointing out the difference between deductive reasoning and science. One of them still requires faith, though it is easy to lose sight of this. The other is falsifiable and testable. Little in the UFO field falls in to the science category, making the application of science to Ufoology an exercise in frustration.

If deductive reasoning was not present in science, we would not have any scientific method at all, and experimentation would be reduced to "shots-in-the-dark" with no relation to each other - no one experiment would have applications toward another.

If a scientist working on a compound tries to dissolve an element in solution A with no effect, and in solution B with some effect, it is logical and reasonable to assume that solution B is closer to what he needs than solution A. He proceeds in the direction of solution B, not on faith, but on observable data.

A man walking in a forest who sees a dark shadow and hearls a snarling sound would be unreasonable to assume it's a werewolf - metamorphosizing werewolves don't exist, and have never been proven to have existed in the past. It's far more reasonable that the snarling, darting shadow might be a bobcat, or bear, or some other animal, since previous experience and the list of local wildlife provides a far more reasonable answer. He's not exercising faith, he's exercising reason, and reason has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

From Webster's, 1990:

faith - 1. allegiance to a duty or person: LOYALTY; 2. belief and trust in or loyalty to God; 3. firm belief in something for which there is no proof; 4. something that is believed in with strong conviction.

reason - 1. to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions: THINK; 2. a rational ground or motive; 3. a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; 4. the power of comprehending, inferring, deducing or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways: INTELLIGENCE; 5. proper exercise of the mind: SANITY; to justify or support with reasons; 6. to persuade or influence by the use of reason; 7. to discover, formulate or conclude by the use of reason.

Where do these two concepts coincide? Where?

Deciding that an enormous buzzard flying over my head was probably a buzzard after all, and not the pterodactyl I thought I'd seen isn't faith at all; it's a reasonable conclusion based on every scrap of evidence available. It's using my brain. It's understanding that what I wanted to see, or imagined I saw is in no way what I really saw.

 

[DBTrek]

Faith and reason are separate, and incompatible.

Incorrect, as I will demonstrate using the definitions you provided.

No, he has arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on evidentiary probabilities.

Using reason he arrived at a conclusion for which he has no tangible proof. His conclusion is not falsifiable and therefore falls outside of the realm of science.

Faith depends on no reason at all - in fact, faith is esteemed because it is practiced even though all reason opposes it. Reason and faith are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. They do not coincide.

Again, that is incorrect.

If deductive reasoning was not present in science, we would not have any scientific method at all, and experimentation would be reduced to "shots-in-the-dark" with no relation to each other - no one experiment would have applications toward another.

Deductive reasoning is part of the scientific process, not the whole of the it.

If a scientist working on a compound tries to dissolve an element in solution A with no effect, and in solution B with some effect, it is logical and reasonable to assume that solution B is closer to what he needs than solution A. He proceeds in the direction of solution B, not on faith, but on observable data.

The scientist you describe above has carried out a falsifiable experiment that others can repeat. He did not simply sit back and deduce that solution B would dissolve the element based on intellectual reasoning.

Now to the definitions:

From Webster's, 1990:

faith - 1. allegiance to a duty or person: LOYALTY; 2. belief and trust in or loyalty to God; 3. firm belief in something for which there is no proof; 4. something that is believed in with strong conviction.

reason - 1. to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions: THINK; 2. a rational ground or motive; 3. a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; 4. the power of comprehending, inferring, deducing or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways: INTELLIGENCE; 5. proper exercise of the mind: SANITY; to justify or support with reasons; 6. to persuade or influence by the use of reason; 7. to discover, formulate or conclude by the use of reason.

Where do these two concepts coincide? Where?

I will be happy to show you where they coincide, though it seems fairly obvious:
Definition #1 for reason "to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions"

- can lead to -

definition #4 for faith "something that is believed in with strong conviction."

Quite simple.

You used your faculties of reason to deduce that the flying entity you previously saw was a buzzard. Furthermore you believe your conclusion with strong conviction. You used reason to arrive at faith.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Using reason he arrived at a conclusion for which he has no tangible proof. His conclusion is not falsifiable and therefore falls outside of the realm of science.

Of course he has proof. There are no large birds the size of a buzzard in central Ohio. There are no pterodactyls around. The observer makes an educated guess based on all the evidence and reasonable likelihoods at hand. In the absence of any other bird that routinely achieves the size of a buzzard, and in light of the fact that buzzards are not uncommon in central Ohio, and in light of the fact that pterodactyls no longer exist, it is most reasonable to conclude that what scared the hell out of me - just a few hours after watching Land of the Lost - was a buzzard, and not a pterodactyl. This is a reasonable conclusion, based on reason and evidence.

Let us suppose that two elderly gentlemen had tried to comfort me that day. Mr. Smythe shows me a buzzard, explains why they're circling close to my house, and asks me if that isn't what I probably saw. Mr. Roberts explains to me that pterodactyls have been killing his livestock, maiming his children and conducting dive-bombing drills on his house for years. He has no dead pterodactyl to show me, no eggs, no egg shell fragments, no place where he can take me to see pterodactyl droppings, or victims with pterodactyl teeth marks in them, or pterodactyl carcasses, but he's seen them, too, so what I saw was likely a pterodactyl.

Is Mr. Smythe's explanation possibly false? Sure. Mr. Roberts could be right. The fact that Mr. Roberts has not one scrap of hard evidence to back him up means that Mr. Smythe's explanation is more reasonable, since it is based on unassailable evidentiary probabilities. I can pretty easily find living and dead buzzards and find their nests. I see them every day feasting on carcasses. No one has ever seen a living pterodactyl - ever. Mr. Smythe's explanation is reasonable. Mr. Roberts' is a leap of faith without evidence. Why?

If I had eschewed the rational, reasoned explanation at which Mr. Smythe helped me arrive, and instead believed that what I saw was indeed a pterodactyl, fetching home supper for a breeding population of pterodactyls that have remained hidden in Granville, Ohio for millions upon millions of year, all the while avoiding interaction or detection, I would have been left with a belief based on faith, since the only evidence for the pterodactyl's existence is that I think I saw one, despite all common sense, archaeological evidence, evidence of how completely unreliable eyewitness testimony can be standing to the contrary. That is faith, and is in no way reasonable. It is the opposite of reason.

This, of course, completely leaves aside the issue of my pre-disposition to believe I saw a pterodactyl, which is another major problem with folks who place stock in the supernatural.

Deductive reasoning is part of the scientific process, not the whole of the it.

A few posts ago, you said they were different. I'm glad you admit deductive reasoning is part of the scientific process. A person using deductive reasoning is, therefore, using an aspect of the scientific process.

By your standard, no astronomer could ever prove the existence of black holes, since he hasn't poked his finger into one, or touched it. We see the black holes, measure their effects, take measurements and data that prove no other phenomena could possibly influence the space around them with equal impact, comprehend how their existence would fit into what we know and understand about the observable universe, theorize about how critically important black holes are to the creation of the universe, and understand that the compilation of the evidence tells us black holes exist. Now, we've built apparatuses to create one here on Earth. This is science.

If an observer instead eschewed this data - hard data, since the effects of black holes can be palpably measured and (now) recreated in a collider, and instead believed that the "holes" in space were really holes, since the rim of the universe is just a conglomeration of sugar donuts, he'd be making an unreasonable assumption, since there is no evidence at all to support that view. If he went through life building a career, a worldview and a theory of universal origins on that assumption, he is acting in faith, since he's thrown reason out the window and acted in blatant disregard for the evidence. It may be more mentally comforting for him to believe that the universe is held together by a rim of sugar donuts, but it isn't reasonable, isn't the result of the exercise of reason, and has nothing to do with science.

The scientist you describe above has carried out a falsifiable experiment that others can repeat. He did not simply sit back and deduce that solution B would dissolve the element based on intellectual reasoning.

Of course he used deduction. Solution B did not fully dissolve the element, as I stated in the original example. Solution B was more successful than A, so B is the direction in which he should go. This is deductive reasoning based on the information at hand, and is scientific.

I will be happy to show you where they coincide, though it seems fairly obvious:
Definition #1 for reason "to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions"

- can lead to -

definition #4 for faith "something that is believed in with strong conviction."

Quite simple.

Not simple, and completely oblivious. Belief is not reason. I don't know how else to get this through to you. I believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster will punish me for my sins. Is that reasonable? No. Reasonably, I could believe in no such thing, since no one has ever proven that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, or that they care about my sins, or that they're able to punish anyone for anything. Believing in all this requires faith, which requires no proof. In fact, faith actively eschewes proof.

I run across a bridge every day while jogging because I reason the bridge will probably not collapse when I cross it. Is this faith, or reason? It's reason, because a) I have crossed this bridge before, b) I saw the bridge constructed, and noticed they used steel beams and not drinking straws, c) someone else just crossed it, and they went over safely, d) many cars, weighing far more than I do, are crossing it now, and having no problems, e) the bridge has never collapsed before, f) bridge collapses here in the civilized western world are pretty damn rare, e) there's a actual bridge there, f) it's the only bridge there, g) I've been on bridges before, h) it's a real bridge, not an (impossibly) invisible one provided by the beneficient (unproven) actions (unproven) of space aliens (unproven) come to earth (unproven) to save us (unproven), and so on. I make a reasoned decision that crossing the bridge twice a day is safe to do. This is a reasonable way to proceed based on proof - the evidence at hand. I don't need to conduct structural safety tests on the bridge every day to act reasonably, scientifically, and understand that the bridge is probably safe to cross. Now, the bridge may well collapse one day, but it won't be for unfathomable reasons, won't be the whim of space aliens upset because we don't listen to Al Gore, won't be because of some supposed Indian curse. An investigation will be conducted, and a reasonable, rational cause of the collapse will be determined.

I admire your willingness to select only certain phrases of the definitions (neither of which actually support your opinion), and how difficult it is to see cherished beliefs for what they are - simple willingness to believe, despite a lack of evidence (or, in many cases, flat-out contrary evidence). In short, I admire your faith in the paranormal, but it isn't reasonable.

 

[Guy.W]

OMG Hopefull skeptic and DBTrek, get a room!!

I officially have a headache, But a great discussion.

 

[DBTrek]

The observer makes an educated guess based on all the evidence and reasonable likelihoods at hand.

Precisely. He has an educated guess, nothing more. That's not science. That's 'hypothesis' which is part of the scientific process. As we reach the 'experimentation' phase we find the subject has nothing with which to experiment. Furthermore no one else has a way to test what the observer has seen for falsifiability. This means the observers conclusion is not scientific. There's really no getting around it.

By your standard, no astronomer could ever prove the existence of black holes, since he hasn't poked his finger into one, or touched it.

It's not my standard, it's the definition of science. Science must be falsifiable.

We see the black holes . . .

You can? That's quite a trick.

. . . see their effects, know that no other phenomena could possibly influence the space around them with equal impact. . .

How exactly do we go about knowing that no other phenomena could possibly influence space with the same impact? That seems to assume a vast knowledge on our part as to the behavior of all natural phenomena in the cosmos.

. . .see how their existence would fit into what we know and understand about the observable universe, realize how critically important black holes are to the creation of the universe, and understand that black holes exist. . .

We can theorize they exist.

Now, we've built apparatuses to create one here on Earth. This is science.

We have black hole generators here on Earth? Where?

Belief is not reason. I don't know how else to get this through to you.

I didn't say it was. I said reasoning can lead to faith (or belief). You have faith that you saw a buzzard and not a pterodactyl. It could have been some other large bird. It could have been a remote controlled airplane. It could have been a freak shadow oassing over you. There are many other possibilities that could explain the pterodactyl sighting. You have faith that what you saw was a buzzard.

I admire your willingness to select only certain phrases of the definitions (neither of which actually support your opinion), and how difficult it is to see cherished beliefs for what they are - simple willingness to believe, despite a lack of evidence (or, in many cases, flat-out contrary evidence).

The definitions clearly supported what I stated. Anyone can read the definitions for themselves and see that I did not twist anything. Denial will not change that.

As I stated (and the definitions confirmed) reason can lead to faith (or belief if you prefer). In absence of hard evidence many of our beliefs are reached by reasoning through probabilities and selecting the most likely one. Reasoning our way to the most likely possibility does not constitute scientific proof. It simply gives us faith that in all likelihood that our beliefs are correct.

In short, I admire your faith in the paranormal, but it isn't reasonable.

I haven't stated any beliefs in the paranormal. What are you talking about?

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Precisely. He has an educated guess, nothing more. That's not science. That's 'hypothesis' which is part of the scientific process. As we reach the 'experimentation' phase we find the subject has nothing with which to experiment. Furthermore no one else has a way to test what the observer has seen for falsifiability. This means the observers conclusion is not scientific. There's really no getting around it.

So if there's any possibility that a pterodactyl lives in Granville, the issue stays open in perpetuity? Does that really sound intelligent to you? Do you honestly think science is conducted that way, and that any claim - no matter how preposterous or devoid of evidence - has equal weight?

By believing I saw a pterodactyl, I am making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. The only evidence in my favor is my eyewitness account, which is evidentially meaningless. The theory that what I saw is a buzzard is based on evidence all around me, hard evidence easily acquired, and is not an extraordinary claim. The two claims are not equally likely to be true, and evidentiary probabilities completely justifies the buzzard solution.

It's not my standard, it's the definition of science. Science must be falsifiable.

You're not being scientific at all, and you are convoluting what science is and what it isn't. A person has faith without proof - faith and proof are not connected in any way. A person who comes to a reasoned conclusion does so because of evidence. That conclusion has nothing to do with faith.

I've run out of parables and examples to make this clear. Perhaps you could offer one of your own to defend your position?

You can? That's quite a trick.

I suggest you go to space.com and see all the images of black holes you want. They are clearly visible to telescopes. Thanks to modern optics, we can even see the light-swirl pattern in the vortex, and the ejection of plumes of energy out of the vortex (since black holes do not, alas, act only as a vaccuum, but as an expulsion agent).

How exactly do we go about knowing that no other phenomena could possibly influence space with the same impact? That seems to assume a vast knowledge on our part as to the behavior of all natural phenomena in the cosmos.

Because no telescope or experiment has ever detected anything else that compares with what the evidence before us plainly demonstrates. We have hard, measurable evidence for black holes, which cause measurable, evident effects on their environment. We can create black holes with the proper equipment. Black holes exist.

By your reasoning, anyone can make any postulation they want to explain those holes in space, and the effects caused by their presence. But those postulations would be nothing more than speculation, and would not be scientific, unless they can produce contrary, measurable, hard evidence that supports their assertions.

If you have an alternate explanation for these holes in space, let's hear them, and - far more importantly - hear the evidence and experiments you've conducted to support your concept.

We can theorize they exist.

"Theory" does not mean "educated guess" in science. "Theory" means far more than that.

We have black hole generators here on Earth? Where?

ESA and NASA began funding the construction of a device that can create a mini-black hole here on Earth. It is located in Europe.

The Discovery Channel, in fact, had an entire show dedicated to it just a couple of week ago. I normally get nervous when I see Germans building heavy equipment, but the show was pretty enlightening.

I didn't say it was. I said reasoning can lead to faith (or belief). You have faith that you saw a buzzard and not a pterodactyl. It could have been some other large bird. It could have been a remote controlled airplane. It could have been a freak shadow oassing over you. There are many other possibilities that could explain the pterodactyl sighting. You have faith that what you saw was a buzzard.

No. What I have is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at hand. It is not faith. I believe that the buzzard explanation is best, and I'm working from that, because no one has presented hard, contrary evidence, and there is a great amount of evidence in favor of the buzzard explanation, and quite a bit to lead me to discard the alternate explanations you offered.

At some point, you have to filter the likely from the unlikely, and the probable from the improbable. I don't know how one responsibly negotiates life otherwise.

The definitions clearly supported what I stated. Anyone can read the definitions for themselves and see that I did not twist anything. Denial will not change that.

So I explain how you're wrong, and you offer "nyah, nyah, nyah" in response? If that's the best discourse you can offer, then I suggest we agree to disagree, and I'll patiently await Mr. Biedny's response.

As I stated (and the definitions confirmed) reason can lead to faith (or belief if you prefer).

I'll try this one more time, and give up. Reason and belief are not synonymous in the sense you're using them. "I believe my wife is cheating on me, and I killed her. My wife cheating on me was the reason I killed her." But was the conclusion reasonable? Was there hard evidence of your wife's cheating? If there was, then you (in your mind) had reason to kill her (though one should question if murder was a reasonable response).

"I know my wife will cheat on me. I know it will happen, and I killed her. My wife cheating on me was the reason I killed her." This is not reasonable. The murderer has no evidentiary basis on which to act, but acts anyway. This is faith - a conclusion based on no evidence at all. It is not reason, and is not reasonable.

You're convoluting reason and belief, and - though mangled as synonyms far too often - one is informed (reason) and one is not (belief).

In absence of hard evidence many of our beliefs are reached by reasoning through probabilities and selecting the most likely one. Reasoning our way to the most likely possibility does not constitute scientific proof. It simply gives us faith that in all likelihood that our beliefs are correct.

In the absence of hard evidence, you indeed have a belief. You do not have a reasonable belief, since reason relies on - and is informed by - evidence.

The fact that one is trying to use reason to reach a conclusion means that faith is now out of the picture, since faith does not use or require evidence. Folks looking for Noah's Ark are not deepening their faith, they are trying to find hard evidence for their beliefs.

I haven't stated any beliefs in the paranormal. What are you talking about?

Fair enough. I'm still waiting to hear how my question to Mr. Biedny applied to my views on stoners and drunks.

 

[DBTrek]

Do you honestly think science is conducted that way, and that any claim - no matter how preposterous or devoid of evidence - has equal weight?

No, and I've never implied that I do. I've stated numersous times that science is falsifiable. That is to say that a scientific claim can be tested in a manner that may (or may not) prove it false. If the claim is not testable in a way where it can be demonstrably wrong then it is not science.

We can not test your claim that you saw a buzzard or a pterodactyl. All we have is your experience and words. That's not science, that's you relaying what you believe you saw. Therefore your belief that you originally saw a buzzard is faith, by the very definition you provided. Let me quote the 'faith' definition again:

3. firm belief in something for which there is no proof;

4. something that is believed in with strong conviction.

You can not prove you originally sighted a buzzard, yet you strongly believe that's what it was. This fits not one, but two of the definitions that you provided for "faith".

You're not being scientific at all, and you are convoluting what science is and what it isn't.

I've stated consistently that science is falsifiable. There's nothing convoluted about that. You're the one trying to stretch the definition of science by suggesting it's synonymous with deductive reasoning.

A person has faith without proof - faith and proof are not connected in any way. A person who comes to a reasoned conclusion does so because of evidence. That conclusion has nothing to do with faith.

In the case of your sighting, you have no proof. Thus, as originally stated, you are using faith, not science.

By your reasoning, anyone can make any postulation they want to explain those holes in space, and the effects caused by their presence. But those postulations would be nothing more than speculation, and would not be scientific, unless they can produce contrary, measurable, hard evidence that supports their assertions.

Almost. Those claims made about black holes that are falsifiable would fall under the category of science. The claims based purely on deductive reasoning would be faith - that is to say strongly believed but without proof.

No. What I have is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at hand. It is not faith.

If it's not faith then let's have the evidence.

I believe that the buzzard explanation is best, and I'm working from that, because no one has presented hard, contrary evidence, and there is a great amount of evidence in favor of the buzzard explanation, and quite a bit to lead me to discard the alternate explanations you offered.

Your own words. You "believe" the buzzard explaination is best. That's not science. That's faith.

I'll try this one more time, and give up. Reason and belief are not synonymous in the sense you're using them. "I believe my wife is cheating on me, and I killed her. My wife cheating on me was the reason I killed her." But was the conclusion reasonable? Was there hard evidence of your wife's cheating? If there was, then you (in your mind) had reason to kill her (though one should question if murder was a reasonable response).

There's a glaring flaw in this example. If hard evidence exists that your wife is cheating on you then there's no reason to "believe" she is. You can simply 'know' she is.

You're convoluting reason and belief, and - though mangled as synonyms far too often - one is informed (reason) and one is not (belief).

Not at all. Belief can be reasoned, much like your belief that your pterodactyl sighting was actually a buzzard. Belief can not be proven . . . that is to say it is not falsifiable. Absence of proof and absence of reason are two different things.

In the absence of hard evidence, you indeed have a belief. You do not have a reasonable belief, since reason relies on - and is informed by - evidence.

Says who?

Let's look at your definitons again. Here's "reason":

1. to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions: THINK;
2. a rational ground or motive;
3. a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense;
4. the power of comprehending, inferring, deducing or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways: INTELLIGENCE;
5. proper exercise of the mind: SANITY; to justify or support with reasons;
6. to persuade or influence by the use of reason;
7. to discover, formulate or conclude by the use of reason.


None of those seven definitions of "reason" say anything about evidence, just as none of the definitions of "faith" said anything about it being separate from reason.

You're arguing against your own definitions. That should tell you something.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

No, and I've never implied that I do. I've stated numersous times that science is falsifiable. That is to say that a scientific claim can be tested in a manner that may (or may not) prove it false. If the claim is not testable in a way where it can be demonstrably wrong then it is not science.

So, according to your definition of "science," someone who says that pterodactyls are extinct cannot be a scientist, since he cannot prove that somewhere a pterodactyl lives. That is startling news to thousands of paleontologists.

We can not test your claim that you saw a buzzard or a pterodactyl. All we have is your experience and words. That's not science, that's you relaying what you believe you saw. Therefore your belief that you originally saw a buzzard is faith, by the very definition you provided.

It is a conclusion based on reason, and on available evidence. Evidence is not limited to that which I personally have to gather, but it has to be defensible evidence. Pterodactyls do not exist anymore, buzzards do, and frequent the area. No other flying object the size of a buzzard makes the noise I heard, has the same color, a longish-looking tail, a long neck, feet tucked underneath it and is present in central Ohio.

Let me quote the fait definition again:

3. firm belief in something for which there is no proof;

4. something that is believed in with strong conviction.

You can not prove you originally sighted a buzzard, yet you strongly believe that's what it was. This fits not one, but two of the definitions that you provided for "faith".

I don't know how else to keep slamming home the concept that my conclusion was not based on faith, for which there is no proof, but on reason, for which evidence has to be gathered. I have evidence that what I saw was a buzzard, and not a pterodactyl. It is not an extraordinary claim, but a very ordinary one, and requires ordinary evidence.

I've stated consistently that science is falsifiable. There's nothing convoluted about that. You're the one trying to stretch the definition of science by suggesting it's synonymous with deductive reasoning.

You're either not reading what I've written before, or being terribly selective in what you will and will not reply to. I've noted before that deductive reasoning has a very large part to play in science, and was the only tool available to young kid who thought he saw a pterodactyl.

I'm more comfortable with this position than your earlier one, in which you tried to state that deductive reasoning was apart from the scientific process.

Almost. Those claims made about black holes that are falsifiable would fall under the category of science. The claims based purely on deductive reasoning would be faith - that is to say strongly believed but without proof.

And which claims about black holes did I make that have no proof?

Your own words. You "believe" the buzzard explaination is best. That's not science. That's faith.

Wrong. It's a logical deduction based on everything we know about the natural world. Evidence informed the decision, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

There's a glaring flaw in this example. If hard evidence exists that your wife is cheating on you then there's no reason to "believe" she is. You can simply 'know' she is.

I find it amusing to hear someone who uses "reason" and "believe" synonymously now trying to differentiate between "believe" and "know."

Not at all. Belief can be reasoned, much like your belief that your pterodactyl sighting was actually a buzzard. Belief can not be proven . . . that is to say it is not falsifiable.

Without evidence, I could guess I saw a buzzard instead of a pterodactyl, but it would be only a guess. But considering the observable, measurable evidence at hand, and considering the likely probabilities, I reached a reasoned, reasonable conclusion that what I saw was a buzzard. That is not faith.

Could it have been a motorized plane? Yes, but that's unlikely since it wasn't buzzing and we lived on a farm with only four people within 8 miles of us, and no one around us owned a motorized plane, so it was more reasonable to conclude it was a buzzard. Could it have been a UFO? I suppose. But that would be an unreasonable conclusion, since no one has proven that UFOs exist.

If I decided it was a plane, I'd be on shaky ground - far shakier ground than if I decided what I saw was a buzzard. It was far more reasonable to decide the object was a buzzard, since it fit all the known facts. If I decided it was a UFO, I'd be acting on faith, since there was absolutely no evidence it was a UFO, and there is no evidence UFOs exist.

Absence of proof and absence of reason are two different things.

Actually, they're the basis of faith, which requires no proof, and therefore lies outside the realm of reason, which does require proof.

Says who?

Let's look at your definitons again. Here's "reason":

1. to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions: THINK;
2. a rational ground or motive;
3. a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense;
4. the power of comprehending, inferring, deducing or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways: INTELLIGENCE;
5. proper exercise of the mind: SANITY; to justify or support with reasons;
6. to persuade or influence by the use of reason;
7. to discover, formulate or conclude by the use of reason.


None of those seven definitions of "reason" say anything about evidence, just as none of the definitions of "faith" said anything about it being separate from reason.

(The definitions are Webster's, not mine.)

They say everything about evidence, because reasonable conclusions are informed conclusions, which are based on evidence. What do you think "rational" means? What do you think "logical" means? What do you think "orderly" means? How does one do anything reasonable without "a sufficient ground of explanation?"

You're arguing against your own definitions. That should tell you something.

It tells me that you and I will have to agree to disagree, and that I should be hopeful you're not a science teacher or logician.

 

[DBTrek]

So, according to your definition of "science," someone who says that pterodactyls are extinct cannot be a scientist, since he cannot prove that somewhere a pterodactyl lives. That is startling news to thousands of paleontologists.

No. Scientist can say whatever they want. Saying "pterodactyls are extinct" and saying "I've scientifically proven all pterodactyls are extinct" are two different things. One is a scienctific claim, and one is an assumption reached through deductive reasoning. I don't know how many ways I can demonstrate this idea of falsifiability to you before it "clicks", but I'm not willing to give up on you just yet.

Evidence is not limited to that which I personally have to gather, but it has to be defensible evidence.

According to your story evidence is "two days after I saw a pterodactyl I figured out it was a buzzard because I saw a buzzard!"

That's defensible scientific evidence? No, I don't think so. That's deductive reasoning allowing you to reach a position of strong belief, aka faith.

I don't know how else to keep slamming home the concept that my conclusion was not based on faith, for which there is no proof, but on reason, for which evidence has to be gathered.

1. As I pointed out in my last post 'evidence' is in no way required for reason.
2. Your conclusion is based on reasoned faith, as you have no evidence.

I have evidence that what I saw was a buzzard, and not a pterodactyl. It is not an extraordinary claim, but a very ordinary one, and requires ordinary evidence.

Let's have it then. I wish to test your evidence. Where is it?

I've noted before that deductive reasoning has a very large part to play in science, and was the only tool available to young kid who thought he saw a pterodactyl.

You mean your conclusion is not falsifiable? Then it's not science.

I'm more comfortable with this position than your earlier one, in which you tried to state that deductive reasoning was apart from the scientific process.

I did? Could you quote me on that?

Wrong. It's a logical deduction based on everything we know about the natural world. Evidence informed the decision, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

What evidence? I still want to test it. Where can I get it?

Without evidence, I could guess I saw a buzzard instead of a pterodactyl, but it would be only a guess. But considering the observable, measurable evidence at hand, and considering the likely probabilities, I reached a reasoned, reasonable conclusion that what I saw was a buzzard. That is not faith.

You strongly believe your conclusion and have no proof to back it up. That is, by definition, faith. Where's this measurable evidence you're referencing? I want to measure it.

Actually, they're the basis of faith, which requires no proof, and therefore lies outside the realm of reason, which does require proof.

"Proof" is not required or mentioned in the seven definitions of reason either. I think the problem may be that you don't understand the definition of 'reason'. You keep claiming that reason requires evidence and proof when anyone can read the definition and see that your assumption is incorrect.

They say everything about evidence, because reasonable conclusions are informed conclusions, which are based on evidence.

According to you, not the definition of the word. If you want your personal definition of 'reason' to include proof have at it. Just don't expect the rest of the english speaking world to adopt your bastardized version of the word.

It tells me that you and I will have to agree to disagree, and that I should be hopeful you're not a science teacher or logician.

Why don't you take your pterodactyl story to the local university and run it past the professors of science. Ask them if your conclusion was scientific and see what they say. Just promise to wager a large sum of money with me before you do that.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

What was the old proverb? "There are none so blind as those who will not see?" I give up. I agree to disagree.

I will, though, take your challenge and submit the story to an e-mail group composed of scientists of which - for some reason - I am a part. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. I'm an Ohio State fan, so I have no shame.

I'm still eager to hear Mr. Biedny's response.

 

[DBTrek]

What was the old proverb? "There are none so blind as those who will not see?" I give up. I agree to disagree.

I will, though, take your challenge and submit the story to an e-mail group composed of scientists of which - for some reason - I am a part. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. I'm an Ohio State fan, so I have no shame.

I'm still eager to hear Mr. Biedny's response.

Fair enough. I enjoyed the conversation while it lasted, though we've definitely reached an impasse. I'd be interested in seeing the responses you get if you're willing to post them.

-DBTrek

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Fair enough. I enjoyed the conversation while it lasted, though we've definitely reached an impasse. I'd be interested in seeing the responses you get if you're willing to post them.

-DBTrek

I just sent my query into the forum. If I get any answers, I'll post the replies. It'll be fun to sort them out. There are some skeptics, some folks on the list who hold religious beliefs, and at least one person who puts some stock in the "paranormal" - which phenomena, I'm not yet certain. Thus, we might get a pretty good range of responses.

I originally posted my silly (and honestly embarrassing) story because I was curious to know why Mr. Biedny puts so much stock into some eyewitness testimony - testimony uncorroborated by hard evidence - but not in other eyewitness testimony that also inspires belief, changes lives, has multiple witnesses, etc. I would really, really like to hear a response from him, if he's still monitoring the thread. (We may have exhausted him. )

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Okay, DBTrek - we're back. I was getting some good responses until the paranormal guy stated his complete confidence in Joe McMoneagle, and that got everyone on an entirely different tangent. I'm sure you can imagine.

I was wrong to claim that my conclusion was thoroughly scientific. I used Occam's Razor, and found the most likely, rational explanation for what I saw based on the evidence available (they did agree I used the best evidence available, though, short of shooting the object and testing it, which would have been preferable). I should have said that I reached a reasonable conclusion, based on reason and the available evidence.

You're apparently wrong to say that I then proceed on that conclusion by faith, since faith has nothing to do with evidence, and does not take evidence into account - in fact, faith is a belief arrived at despite evidence to the contrary.

So, I can't make a scientific determination that what I saw was a buzzard, but it's a reasonable conclusion in the light of the available evidence and common sense. Proceeding on that conclusion in no way involves faith.

I think my sin was more egregious than yours, though.