subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You believe the way your looking at everything within science isn't the proper way for inquiry into the life and the world around us? Maybe theses are not important questions? What!?

If there is an epistemic object for evaluation, I evaluate it. No belief in here.
If there is no epistemic object to evaluate, I cannot evaluate. No belief in here.
Whatever is out of my ability to evaluate it, is simply not evaluated by me. No belief in here.
I cannot make hypotheses for epistemic objects whose existence I ignore regardless of the reality or non-reality of their existence per se. No belief in here too.
Where exactly is faith in those cases?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
If there is an epistemic object for evaluation, I evaluate it. No belief in here.
If there is no epistemic object to evaluate, I cannot evaluate. No belief in here.
Whatever is out of my ability to evaluate it, is simply not evaluated by me. No belief in here.
I cannot make hypotheses for epistemic objects whose existence I ignore regardless of the ...[text shortened]... ty of their existence per se. No belief in here too.
Where exactly is faith in those cases?
😵

You evaluate it, and deem it however you feel is correct according to your methods, yes
you have faith in your methods, or you would not be using them, you'd use something
else. Whatever is out of your ability to evaluate may not be something you can evaluate,
yet you do, because you dismiss everything you cannot as not an answer, so you do
come up with a judgment call there too.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I just told you that the experiment was conducted again and again with simulated atmospheres whose syntheses was different and yet the outcomes were supportive to the theory of abiogenesis, proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How did you come to the false conclusion th ...[text shortened]... was that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials?
😵

Sorry but forming a couple of amino acids using intelligent intervention in the lab does not prove that life emerged spontaneously without intelligent intervention through naturally occurring chemical reactions. Do you even know how many amino acids were formed during the experiment and how many are actually required for a simple protein? Seems not.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You evaluate it, and deem it however you feel is correct according to your methods, yes
you have faith in your methods, or you would not be using them, you'd use something
else. Whatever is out of your ability to evaluate may not be something you can evaluate,
yet you do, because you dismiss everything you cannot as not an answer, so you do
come up with a judgment call there too.

I evaluate the epistemic objects whose existence I am aware of in the sphere of the Physical World, of my Inner World and of the World of the Ideas, strictly by means of using my mind and its products.

Is this method of mine correct?
It depends. Some evaluations are accurate, some are false.

Do I have faith in my methods?
Never. I either know that I know, or I know I ignore. I evaluate and try to falsify my methods and its products constantly, due to the fact that each minute I get to know more and to ignore more. The result is that the sensemaking and thus the knowledge process of mine shift and change constantly.

Why do I use my mind and its products although I know they do not allow the cultivation of faith on them?
Because, for one, I have no other tools handy other than my fallible bodymind and its products, so I am forced to go full monty and to be always aware of this fact. No Faith.
For two, Faith is not required. When I am hungry, I eat. I eat when I Know that I am hungry, that is; it works fine for me.

Whatever is out of my ability to evaluate it due to the fact that I am not aware of its existence, I do not evaluate it because it is not an epistemic object whose existence I am aware of. Therefore, epistemic objects whose existence is not verified, do not concern me. So, how and by what means could I cultivate faith in this context?
On the other hand, since the religious theories of reality are strictly grounded on blind beliefs, it is not properly said that they are viable theories of reality. In this case, I evaluate them as untenable theories of reality herenow, for tomorrow I may know more. Where exactly do you see some sort of faith in this syllogism too?
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Sorry but forming a couple of amino acids using intelligent intervention in the lab does not prove that life emerged spontaneously without intelligent intervention through naturally occurring chemical reactions. Do you even know how many amino acids were formed during the experiment and how many are actually required for a simple protein? Seems not.

The protocol of the Miller-Urey experiment excludes all kinds of intelligent intervention in the lab.
On the other hand, the repeatedly verified outcome of the experiment proves simply that several organic amino acids do form spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. They do not prove, as you think, that life emerged spontaneously with or without intelligent intervention through naturally occurring chemical reactions, yet you keep up repeating this false assumption. Why is that?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The protocol of the Miller-Urey experiment excludes all kinds of intelligent intervention in the lab.
On the other hand, the repeatedly verified outcome of the experiment proves simply that several organic amino acids do form spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. They do not prove, as you think, that life emerged spontaneously with or without in ...[text shortened]... occurring chemical reactions, yet you keep up repeating this false assumption. Why is that?
😵

You said experiment was "proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions". Are you now withdrawing this false assumption?

You also don't seem to get that adding electrodes and sparks is a form of 'intelligent intervention' and it is not simply spontaneous.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You said experiment was "proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions". Are you now withdrawing this false assumption?

You also don't seem to get that adding electrodes and sparks is a form of 'intelligent intervention' and it is not simply spontaneous.

Of course I repeatedly told you the experiment was proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions. I said not that the experiment was proving that the first life forms did emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions. Hopefully you may notice the difference and see that the false assumption is yours.

As regards the ...intelligent intervention you believe that took place in the experiment, it is not an intervention but a specific setup that stimulated the primordial atmosphere of the young Earth in accordance to the Oparin-Haldane scenario, which proposes the possibility that life could arise naturally from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
In addition, according to the suggestions that the very common in the primordial atmosphere of our planet lightning storms were probably not as common as it was implied from the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment, it was proposed that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted -but the time scale would be 100 million years instead of a week. "Intelligent intervention" is non-existent in the context of the experiment😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I evaluate the epistemic objects whose existence I am aware of in the sphere of the Physical World, of my Inner World and of the World of the Ideas, strictly by means of using my mind and its products.

Is this method of mine correct?
It depends. Some evaluations are accurate, some are false.

Do I have faith in my methods?
Never. I either know t ...[text shortened]... tomorrow I may know more. Where exactly do you see some sort of faith in this syllogism too?
😵

You are trusting in the tools you use, you are even leaning upon your own understanding. You have limited your acceptance of what matters by boiling it all down to the Physical world believing that is where all the answers resides. So if they don't really reside there you will ever be learning but never coming to the knowledge.

Our faith lays in what we trust in it doesn't matter if is something in or out of our control and limitations.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You are trusting in the tools you use, you are even leaning upon your own understanding. You have limited your acceptance of what matters by boiling it all down to the Physical world believing that is where all the answers resides. So if they don't really reside there you will ever be learning but never coming to the knowledge.

Our faith lays in what we trust in it doesn't matter if is something in or out of our control and limitations.

Clearly, the fact that I lean upon my bodymind does not mean I cultivate faith on my bodymind.

Furthermore, your string of thoughts is interesting; because, if the real products of specific parts of knowledge are not indeed products of knowledge but just products of faith, as you appear to believe, it cannot be properly said that the fruits of faith are knowledge –they are simply products of faith. Otherwise, faith and knowledge would be exactly the same, but this is not the case because faith and knowledge have different properties.
So, how and by what means did you manage to equalize the lack of knowledge (faith) with the lack of faith (knowledge) and came to conclude that specific beliefs, which are grounded strictly on faith, are indeed not products of faith but products of knowledge although by definition they are not parts of knowledge but strictly of faith?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Clearly, the fact that I lean upon my bodymind does not mean I cultivate faith on my bodymind.

Furthermore, your string of thoughts is interesting; because, if the real products of specific parts of knowledge are not indeed products of knowledge but just products of faith, as you appear to believe, it cannot be properly said that the fruits of fait ...[text shortened]... s of knowledge although by definition they are not parts of knowledge but strictly of faith?
😵

How do you describe faith, because I think we're talking past one another?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
How do you describe faith, because I think we're talking past one another?

Very good point Kellyjay, since "faith" is a quite broad term.

In the context of our discussion, I have in mind as a stepping stone for our further analysis the strong belief (and its consequences the way I presented about the equalization of Faith and Knowledge) in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction instead of proof the way it holds in science. I am talking about the exact kind of faith exemplified in religious faith as is recognised in the Abrahamic religions and surely in the Christian tradition, and particularly the Special Knowledge model, according to which "faith" is conceived as knowledge of specific truths revealed solely by G-d.

So, my question earlier is related to the definition of faith I just offered.
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Worse it is then?

Don't know and don't care.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Don't know and don't care.

You should change your name to ignorant apathist. 😉

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Of course I repeatedly told you the experiment was proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions. I said not that the experiment was proving that the first life forms did emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions. Hopefully you may notice the difference an ...[text shortened]... instead of a week. "Intelligent intervention" is non-existent in the context of the experiment😵

Of course I repeatedly told you the experiment was proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions.

No the only thing the experiment proves is that a few amino acids can be formed. The 'first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously' part is pure speculation and cannot be demonstrated or reproduced. 😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You should change your name to ignorant apathist. 😉

Why do you think that?