The priest and the physicist
There is an entity called soul. It is in your body. It is in everybody. You will only be able to find it if you come to my church and and do whatever I say. After practicing meditation and prayer for several years you will be able to experience the spiritual world but only with my help since I am the only connection between the spiritual and material world. If you come to my temple you will see the high moral standards there and how the members are not affected by material thinking, so this really works.
-A religious leader
There is an elementary particle called quark. Basically it is everywhere in the universe. You will be able to understand it after several years of studying Mathematics and Physics. We can only observe these quarks at CERN but believe me our highly qualified scientists know what they are doing and believe us since we are the only ones capable of observing the truth. You can see how many new technologies we have invented so trust me.
-A scientist.
What is the difference between the two arguments from a scientific methodology perspective?
-A religious leader
There is an elementary particle called quark. Basically it is everywhere in the universe. You will be able to understand it after several years of studying Mathematics and Physics. We can only observe these quarks at CERN but believe me our highly qualified scientists know what they are doing and believe us since we are the only ones capable of observing the truth. You can see how many new technologies we have invented so trust me.
-A scientist.
What is the difference between the two arguments from a scientific methodology perspective?
Comments (76)
Quoting Meta
These are really the only statements in what you've written that can really be judged from a scientific perspective. I guess as rational people we should say that the first is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific statement while the second is not only falsifiable, but also has been verified in numerous scientific studies.
The rest is mostly advertising.
You say that "quarks exist" is scientific and "souls exist" is not scientific. Based on what criteria?
I think both the quark and the soul are experienceable. I know some physics. I have a pretty good grasp of how scientists think the subatomic world is put together and what role quarks play. Also of how they went about figuring it out. I have a reasonably strong confidence in the scientific method and establishment that makes me believe what I have been told, at least as the best current explanation.
As for the soul - I have personal experience of something I believe corresponds to what others call a soul. I call it various things, mostly just "me."
Quoting Meta
The existence of quarks has been verified (?), confirmed (?), established (?) following a set of procedures known as the scientific method. Ergo - science. It is my understanding that the soul, at least in the religious sense, has not been established using the scientific method. Now if we are just talking about a non-supernatural phenomenon called consciousness, we could address it using science. I don't think that is what our friend the priest is talking about.
-The priest
My problem is I don't know what you mean by scientific method. In my understanding observation is a basic concept of scientific method. I will never be able to observe quarks. Same with the soul. The method which is capable of telling which possible reality is real from the infinite possible mathematical universes is not accessible for me. So my observation is indirect. But I can also have an indirect observation of the soul if religion is true. So my question still remains. What is the criteria? What is scientific method?
Based on the criteria that the theoretical model which supports the existence of quarks make predictions which provide evidence for the existence of the quark (although it should be noted that there remains an element of controversy about the quark). But the in-principle answer is that, a scientific hypothesis makes a prediction which can be tested against experiment or observation and either confirmed or falsified. The existence of ‘the soul’ is much more like a poetic metaphor; that doesn’t make it less true, but it makes it a different kind of truth to the kinds of models that physicists deal with.
Quoting Meta
E R Doherty
What is the difference between the observations in CERN and the observations of saints and gurus? They dont have any significant predictions which influence my life in any way. And the priest's and the scientist's theory of everyday physical reality are the same in a sense.
You could say that religious predictions are not quantitative but some predictions of lets say evolutionary biology are also qualitative.
Edit: so when defining the scientific method we cant just say something is observable, we have to clarify what kind of observable phenomena we are talking about. What counts as observable? Phenomena observed by an authority?
A lot rides on 'in a sense'. The point about religious principles, as distinct from scientific ones, is that in the first case, you yourself are the subject of the discipline. That is very different from a case where the object of analysis is external or objective. And that difference has many implications and consequences.
There are several words that are synonyms for "whatever it is": soul, psyche, spirit, vital force, pneuma, anima, atman, embodiment, incarnation animating principle...
If you collect all the definitions you can find for "soul", and collect all the definitions for all the synonyms of soul, you can thoroughly define "soul". Some of these definitions will turn out to be observable and testable. For instance, "emotions and character" are observable and testable. Anything that survives death, or something as vague as "a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena" most likely won't be observable or testable.
Religions teach all sorts of things that are not observable or testable, but this doesn't mean that everything that religions teach is hogwash. Some of it is hogwash, of course.
A young child taught to believe that something called his soul will survive his death is like to find this comforting and (probably) true, even though he will never never never be able to observe or test out the concept. No harm done. Add Heaven and Hell as two alternate destinations for the soul, depending on whether he behaved just right or not, and you have some real leverage over the kid. Harm starts to become possible, if not probable. Add many kinds of ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, angels, and so forth, some who are capable of causing great harm if they are regularly and properly propitiated, and you have a real mess on your hands. Add "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (the title of a famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards) and you have a terrorist.
So... decide what is worth defining and what is not. There may be a kernel of truth buried under the pile of religious bullshit.
I have never observed a scientist say anything like that about quarks. Why should a scientist care whether a lay person believes in quarks? Such a belief has no consequences for the lay person. What she probably would care about is whether a lay person believes her prediction that a certain observable physical event such as a hurricane will occur - because lives can depend on such a belief.
So, I think the second para above is an unfair and inaccurate depiction of scientists.
But also the first para above is an unfair and inaccurate depiction of many religious leaders. I can't imagine the Dalai Lama or Dietrich Boenhoffer saying anything like the arrogant, dogmatic words that are above ascribed to an imaginary priest.
In addition to which: Georges Lemaitre.
When I was reading your answer I thought I found the criteria I had been looking for. But then I realized psychology also has a lot of subjective elements and the self is its subject.
@Bitter Crank
Not defining the soul was a deliberate attempt to show first we have to believe the existence of the soul and second we have to put a lot of effort and time just to be able to define it or to have an intuition about it.
@andrewk
Of course the speech did not occur anywhere. It is just a hypothetical text based on my understanding of how science works. The scientific community only accepts something if it was verified by science. And the proof for science is working is technology.
I agree with you in principle, but question the example. We're really bad at predicting hurricanes, including even predicting their path once formed.
My problem is that the so called empirical facts are not empirical for me. So Im struggling with the definition of "empirical" maybe.
What is empirical in Cern is dogmatic here in my room. What is empirical for a saint is dogmatic here.
They are not arguments. They are descriptions of ways of life.
Quoting Meta
Of course. I am neither a sage nor a saint, because either takes dedication and time and effort. So all I will ever have is second hand dogma recited from the armchair. If it's a problem to you, get out of the chair and get to work.
Both the priest and the scientist argue that their knowledge is true, observable and worth believing.
Even if Im out of the chair, most probably I will never be able to observe an elementary particle at Cern or anywhere. Plus it is unreasonable and impossible to test every (most likely contradictiory) belief system.
Quoting Meta
They claim it rather more than argue it.
Quoting Meta
Yes. So all one can do, at best, is to seriously question received wisdom in one area, and take most of the rest on trust. Even if you're out of the chair. So I conclude that the accumulation of knowledge is a cooperative venture founded on trust with occasional reinvestigation. But the builders of the monasteries and CERN already knew that.
Later another priest turns up saying he has the truth. Do we bet again?
Then comes a scientist saying this priest is a liar.
Basically the origin of this problem for me is I read some flat Earth stuff and I was wondering if there is an empirical (or scientific in the strict sense) way to prove these people that the Earth is not flat. I have made some calculations which proved the flat earther guy was right in his calculations. I am still looking for the demarcation line which tells us what is the difference between science and pseudo science. But if no one has found this line for decades we also wont find it I suppose. I am turning into a nihilist.
Theories are not verified. If useful they are maintained as working hypotheses until falsified. Belief that quarks 'actually exist' (whatever that means) is purely optional.
Unless the priest is a young-Earth creationist, it is unlikely that you will have to choose between the two. Again, consider Georges Lemaitre.
Which is precisely why psychology’s status as a science is open to question.
I agree with you; I've tried to make similar arguments before. Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. Rather than having ditched religion, the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". But the same moral and existential problems remain.
I haven't seen any arguments from the likes of and others that actually address this concept. The usual argument is just "you're not portraying science accurately", without addressing the historical link between religion and science. The church said the same thing when their reign was threatened.
Taken on faith yes, but not in the same way, because the act of faith in science is consistently being vindicated in this world, whereas that in religious dogma is not.
The scientist says the light will go on if you press that switch. The average person has no idea why that should be so, but they take it on faith, press the switch, and the light does indeed go on.
But when the hellfire preacher tells us that unmarried couples will be tortured forever after they die, there is no confirmation of that in this world. Perhaps it is confirmed in the experience of members of such couples after they die. I doubt it though, and I certainly hope not.
Quoting Noble Dust
Address what? That moral and existential problems still remain? To whom is that supposed to be news? Moral and existential problems are part of the human condition, and I'm not aware of anybody that seeks to deny it - be they pro-religion and pro-science (Francis Collins and, I would suggest, most sensible religious people), pro-religion and anti-science (US fundamentalists and Tony Abbott), pro-science and anti-religion (Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss) or anti-religion and anti-science (not sure who this is - Jacques Derrida perhaps?).
As for 'transferring the religious need to another sphere of inquiry' I don't know what that means, or why you think it should be true. If you can clarify what exactly that claim means and provide some reasons to believe it, I'm happy to respond.
The example in the thread so far is the existence of quarks, not a light switch. So, we take it on faith that quarks describe things best; quarks don't vindicate themselves through experience the way a light switch does; at least not yet. So yes, scientific theories like the quark are in fact taken on faith in the same way as religious dogma; or, if not, then argue why that is; the light switch isn't compelling giving the context of the discussion so far; it's not a compelling argument.
Quoting andrewk
This is an argument from emotion; surely you can come up with a more formidable argument from a religious perspective other than this strawman.
Quoting andrewk
I acknowledge the confusion: I meant to address the idea that religious belief hasn't been replaced by scientific certainty; instead, belief as a fundamental component of the human experience has been transferred from the religion of the masses to the scientific beliefs of the masses. Please let me know if that's still not clear; this idea is very clear in my head but I don't always have the knowledge to express it properly.
Quoting andrewk
Maybe; there are the Elon Musks of the world who seem to equate technological progress with an almost teleological coming utopia. Maybe that's not entirely accurate. In any case, I didn't intend to group you in with those folks when I mentioned you, for instance.
Quoting andrewk
I say "religious need" because philosophy in general and any given telos that assigns meaning to life are historically descended from religion. I'm not specifically making an appeal to a specific religion, or the preservation of religion in general, but instead I'm just using what I see as more accurate language which reflects the historical development of the history of ideas. When I say "religious need" I use the term metaphorically, but with the understanding that metaphor is just as descriptive as discursive argument. So, what seems to be lacking from an atheistic perspective (as well as I can see from outside that perspective) is not only a simple acknowledgement of this historicity of religious need, but also the potential ramifications of that historicity with regards to the state of the human condition. We need to assign meaning to life.
As for quarks, I don't think most people believe in them, so the putative example about faith in quarks is simply counterfactual. The only people for whom belief in quarks is even relevant to their lives are particle physicists, and I bet even a good proportion of them see quarks as simply a handy metaphor, a useful fiction that helps with their calculations.
Ok, we're not too far off from one another. I disagree that this only exists in some of us; however, I should clarify that I think that "spiritual feelings and ideas" are phenomena of the human experience that manifest in many ways, including "the scientific". Also the "nihilistic" sense.
Quoting andrewk
Ok; spirituality might be a better term. The oldest extant religious texts are the Vedas, right? And "Hinduism" as a religion is really a 200-something-year-old western construct that tries to make sense of the ancient spiritual traditions of Indian religion and philosophy, from a specifically western perspective. So, "such a need" is maybe descended from spirituality, not specifically religion. Is that better for you, or no? That's an honest question. If that works better, then it doesn't much affect my argument. It looks like an issue of language.
As a consequence of evolution? >:)
>:O
Also, you're actually obfuscating my argument. Your specific points are interesting to debate about, but they don't address my main argument. This is what I'm actually interested in:
Quoting Noble Dust
Any thoughts?
Quoting Noble Dust
Actually the word is derived from 'the people over the River Indus' i.e. Indians. Hinduism is not a religion, it is a plethora of religions and philosophies - theistic, polytheistic, atheistic and everything in between.
Thanks, great stuff.
Yeah, that's what I meant by putting it in quotes; I'm aware of the basic history.
So you actually disagree with the entire premise. :P
Quoting andrewk
You continue to either miss or ignore my argument. There is a section of the population that treats science as a religion. Pure and simple. Google some Neil deGrasse Tyson memes if you really need to.
Quoting andrewk
Is this really such an emotionally powerful argument for you and others at this point? I'm one of those people that you describe, except I've long since stopped caring about theological dogma that has to do specifically with Hell. Is that specifically your theological issue here, or are you just using using "burnt at the stake" as another convenient strawman as you did earlier in the thread?
You make an important point. I'd call it expert culture. But even participants in this expert culture (scientists or engineers in one field among many) are themselves in this situation. There is just too much knowledge. Becoming proficient in a single field is the work of many years. No one sees the machine as a whole anymore. It's impossible.
But I think it's politics that has absorbed much of the interest that religion proper has lost. Wasn't the lost traditional religion largely political to begin with? One could argue that only the operant "theology" has changed --in the direction of individual liberty. My interpretation of scripture, my sex life, my dietary choices, etc., are mine. This freedom comes at the cost of angst. I can't rest in the certainty of the government-enforced one-right-way to worship-obey the official god as officially conceived by experts. I have to stand in a "field" of disagreement. Others may laugh at me, mock what I hold most sacred.
I personally embrace this burden. I speculate that frustration with our "godless" world (a frustration that refuses to see just how full of belief we really are, even if the beliefs modulate) is a desire to escape this burden blended with a desire to impose one's own vision on others. These desires are deeply and perhaps inescapably human.
A politician would never say that we are slaves but in fact a lot of us are wage slaves. Same with the physicist. The scientific community has an institutional hierarchy with informational monopoly at the top. They also get a lot of tax money from everyone. (We are forced to believe in science.)
I'm glad that someone agrees with me. However I think science and religion are different, I'm just looking for a criteria that tells the difference. The self being the subject or being observeble are not correct ones (in my opinion).
But then being a creationist does not directly imply being ignorant or stupid. It means you believe in the truth of a community different from the scientific community.
They teach the physical theory and not creationism at schools. How do they explain that? They surely have a criteria.
So what? Since the findings of science are gathered with a strict method they are deserving of that faith. Mythical stories written by goat farmers 2000 years ago are not deserving of the same degree of faith.
There are two traditions that conflict. We are in a community where those two traditions are meeting, and it is necessary to choose. But then one examines and chooses.
Suppose I came up with some universal criteria for choosing, and another came up with some different criteria. By what criteria would you choose the criteria by which to choose? It is an impossible question, and when one arrives at an impossible question, one has to answer with ones's life. Choose!
The problem is what sort of meaning the belief system imputes. Religion imputed a telos that gave every day life a purpose; science as a belief system only imputes data.
Yes, this is important.
Right! I am convinced that people never choose their overarching 'life' beliefs on the basis of so-called pure rationality; and this is because there is no such thing. Any movement of thought is based on (in rational terms) baseless axioms or presuppositions.
People choose their life beliefs in diverse ways; on the basis of habit, acceptance or rejection of authority, in light of intuition or what feels right to them, or of how things have come to seem to them through lived experience, or in the context of profound epiphanic experiences, and so on. It is always an existential and affective, and never a coldly rational, process, as I see it.
I agreeQuoting Meta
I wouldn't say a lot of physicists are wage slaves, but you're probably right that some are. The reason not many would be is that physics is fun, plus physicists are generally very good at maths, so if they don't like their job they can move into finance, make a load of money very quickly then retire and do whatever they want. Not many physicists do that because, as I said, physics is fun (more fun that finance), but plenty do.
Quoting Meta
It's not very hierarchical. Power over budgets and people is hierarchical, but real power in science is influence, which tends to be driven by the value of one's discoveries, and that is not very hierarchical. Nor do I think there is an informational monopoly at the top, unless you're referring to the obsession with paper publishing, citation counts and the power of the big journals. If so, I agree that that's a very bad thing (I could rave about it for hours) but I wouldn't call it an information monopoly.
Quoting Meta Being forced to pay tax for something doesn't mean that one is forced to believe in it.
Some of the tax I have to pay is used to spy on and incarcerate my fellow citizens in the name of the phony 'war on terror', and some of it is used to lock up and mistreat refugees. And my government has just wasted $122 million of taxpayers money to hold a postal ballot on whether to allow marriage equality, even though it knew a large majority of the population wants it, just because if they did their job properly and had a free-conscience parliamentary vote on a bill to introduce marriage equality (which would almost certainly have passed), that would cause some of the hard-right members of the ruling party to get irritated at the PM.
I don't like my tax being used to pay for those things, but it doesn't make me believe in those things.
Without religion I am free to determine with honesty my own telos.
I would argue this. People who answer questions originally raised by the scientific community are rewarded but try to build a new theory or say something completely new and your are f...ed.
Well, who do we find the most convincing, and why?
I don't find anything that the priest says convincing. Why would I? I don't even know what he's talking about when he talks about the soul and about spirituality, because those terms are vague and undefined. How would going to church verify anything that he has told me? The part that seems the most testable, although not scientifically, is the part about whether the people there are of a high moral standard.
The scientist, on the other hand, I find much more convincing, because I've seen science work. I have conducted scientific experiments and seen the results. I have seen how science explains things better than alternatives. With each confirmation in the scientific method, my confidence in it gains. It's more plausible that if I went to CERN and witnessed what they do there, it would be as they say, then that it would turn out to be an elaborate ploy.
Your analogy is, of course, a false analogy.
The priest could say theres technology and such but did science make people happier? Maybe, maybe not. I think most of the everyday technologies are useless and make people depressed. Does religion make people happier and morally better? He could claim that. So the priests evidence is psychological in nature.
There is a cult in my country that has a farm. A police magazine made an article about them a couple of years ago: there were zero crimes committed there in the 20 year history of the farm. Thousands of people go there every year. Thats something.
I just did. (Also, see the edit).
Quoting Meta
That's just changing the subject. Your opening post wasn't about which of the two would make someone happier. I don't care to discuss that. I thought that this was about who is more plausible based on the sort of examples that you originally gave.
Quoting Meta
Yes, that's something. Something of very little discernible relevance. Are you attempting to show that people who join a cult can be good people? Okay, granted. So what? I don't need a priest to tell me that, and I don't need a cult or a religion to be a good person.
My example with the farm is an observable example of a place with very high moral standards. This place can be argued to be not as good as but collectively morally a much better place than other places.
You did not explain why the analogy is false you just answered the OP. The structure of both claims are the same: somebody asking for faith which will be later verified by (subjective or objective) evidence.
Edit: I suppose you also know that the interpretations of quantum mechanics are just as mystical as that of the soul.
That neglects to take into consideration the individualistic nature of psychology and moral standards. I know what would make me happy better than this priest, who doesn't know me at all, and I'll be the judge of what's a high moral standard.
Quoting Meta
The big dissimilarity, which I think was clear enough from my previous comment, is that I have far greater reason to believe the one than the other. And I gave reasons as to why.
It isn't even clear whether the priest's claims can be[/I] verified. How does one verify that there is such a thing as a soul? What [i]even is a soul? As I said, the term is vague and undefined. I don't have this problem regarding quarks.
I have greater reason to believe that the priest's claims would be [i]falsified[/I], rather than verified - at least in relation to myself. The converse is the case with regards to the claims of the scientist.
Faith doesn't even need to come into it. It's a matter of belief, and of whom one has greater reason to believe. For me, the answer is clear. It's no conundrum. Your comparison is therefore misleading.
On the other hand science is not as exact and objective as one would think. The paradigms of reason and rationality of the enlightenment have completely failed in the context of society.
No it's not, because it [i]is[/I] misleading.
Quoting Meta
So? A cultist might argue that a cult metaphysics is completely justified. That doesn't mean that it actually is.
Quoting Meta
That's not a claim that I've made. I wouldn't go that far. It's only partial bullshit.
Quoting Meta
False dichotomy. I have presented for your consideration another kind of person: the person who has not been indoctrinated, but instead has good reason to have confidence in the scientific method.
Quoting Meta
I'm sure that that's a fallacy of some kind: judging something after taking it out of an appropriate context. Have you noticed how sumo wrestlers make terrible sprinters? Such failures! Ah, that's it: category error.
Besides, your claim is far too vague and broad to make much sense of.
I see no point in further analyzing the problem since you don't accept subjective experience as an observation. Your other points, I don't even want to address them because they show lack of openness and lack of will to understanding.
The comparsion may be misleading from your point of view but there are other points of view. From the perspective of some of those it is not misleading. You may think you know the answers but the difference between science and religion is still subject to debate. You should read some Mikael Stenmark.
You have only provided meta-arguments (like you have conducted experiments and you have reason to believe in science but without providing examples of those experiments or reasoning) that has 0 proof value. A cult member would be arguing the same way.
Yes, there may be differing points of view, and I'm arguing that they're not looking at it the right way. From the perspective of others, it might not be misleading, but instead a fair analogy; and from the perspective of someone fifteen thousand feet above the ground, the people down below might not be lifesize, but tiny like ants.
Quoting Meta
You didn't ask for any examples, but why is that necessary? Did you not conduct any scientific experiments when you were at school? I remember the litmus test and an experiment about what happens when you ignite a balloon filled with hydrogen. You have your hypothesis, prediction, result, and conclusion. These experiments can be recreated. Your comparison to a cult is, again, misleading.
You are all talk and no action, and quick to give up for the wrong reasons.
Do you think that you can get a different result if you recreate the scientific experiments that I mentioned? Go ahead, be my guest. If not, concede that there is good reason to have confidence in the scientific method.
Can you give me a similarly good reason to believe what the priest is telling me? Answer me that. You haven't even answered my question about what a soul is. If neither you nor the priest can explain that to me, then how can you expect me to believe what he is saying? I don't even know what he's talking about.
Stop dancing around the point.
My answer about the definition of the soul was that we also dont know what quarks are. We have some experimental facts about them. Sometimes they act like particles sometimes they act like waves but we have no clue what they could be. There are different definitions for the soul and I dont want to just talk about a specific one since what is relevant is the method by which someone experiences the soul.
I think I could recreate the experiments you mentioned. I have a good reason to believe that the scientific method works. However I have a good reason not to believe in the sincerity of the government (or other human beings for that matter). We are all humans at the end. There is a constant information and economic war between states (and between people). I dont think that sincerity is an optimal diplomatic economic or political strategy. Governments (and people) have always lied and today is no exception. I think thats an okay reason not to believe indirect observations.
The same scepticism applies to religious views aswell. I never said that I believe anything the priest tells me but pointed out that I have to believe the same indirect observations. A reason from the priest could be moral, psychological, social, environmental etc.
Yes we do. They're elementary particles, fundamental constituents of matter. They are what hardrons are composed of, connected by gluons. They have certain properties and interact in certain ways, which can be described in further detail, and there are different types, which can be distinguished.
Of course, we don't know [I]everything[/I] about them, but that doesn't mean that we don't know what they are. I know what a cat is, even if I don't know exactly how their immune system functions, or why they behave in a certain way.
Quoting Meta
No, what's more relevant is what you mean, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about, and you may as well be speaking gibberish.
Quoting Meta
Okay.
Quoting Meta
This is a red herring. A scientist is not the government.
Quoting Meta
But the two things do not warrant the same degree of scepticism, and if that's what you're suggesting, then that's where you're mistaken.
I don't care whether or not you believe what either of your characters are saying. But I care about your suggestion that the two are equally or similarly defendable. That's what I'm arguing against, and the burden is on you to defend your own analogy.
I had edited my post before you finished your answer. A scientist is a human being under the control of government.
Your claims that we can understand or comprehend quantum objects is false. We may have theoretic models and observations. We can make predictions about them. But we will never know what they are. We have no clue how can anything be in a superposition.
I dont even bother looking up a definition of the soul because it is totally irrelevant.
There are critical cases in science with great economic, political, technological or other impact. These cases should be taken with as much scepticism as religion (ie. with loads of scepticism). Now the existence of a particle with such a limited observability may count as a critical case.
No more than you or I. I don't buy into conspiracy theories or irrational distrust.
Quoting Meta
You don't know that we will never know what they are. You can't possibly know that.
But I do know what they are. I just told you what they are. This knowledge is based on the work of scientists, who have conducted experiments which confirm their existence.
If I can know what a cat is without knowing everything about cats, then why can't I know what a quark is without knowing everything about quarks? Or do you doubt that I know what a cat is? That would be amusing, as my cat is right next to me. Perhaps, unbeknownst to me, my cat is actually a parrot or refrigerator or god knows what, but I very much doubt that.
If I don't know what a quark is, because we don't understand them fully, yet cats, along with every other physical thing, is composed of quarks, then how can I know what anything is? What about all of the things surrounding me?
See where your logic takes us? Absurdity.
Quoting Meta
I'm going to assume that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and that the term has no meaning, until you give me reason to believe otherwise.
This is not the case regarding quarks, so the analogy is false.
Quoting Meta
There are unresolved mysteries in science. That is something I do not deny. But they're nothing like the pseudo-mysteries of religion.
You may repeat what wikipedia or a textbook says about quarks but there is nothing in the macroworld that can give anybody an intuition about events in the microworld. So probably you will never have an understanding of quarks like you understand your cat or any macroworld object. But that is also irrelevant.
Just to give a "definition": your soul is your substance. But if you dont get why the definition is not important then all this is pointless. The "soul" gets meaning after youve experienced it. The analogy doesnt fail. The analogy is about believing indirect observations. I have never mentioned definitions.
My point is that there are cases where we dont have access to an experiment and we also have reason not to believe in it. You may be more trustful with people than I (so the analogy is misleading for you but not for me) but after all it comes down to our perspectives.
It sounds rather like a conspiracy theory to me. Perhaps it's a borderline case or just happens to share something in common with conspiracy theory. But either way, you're largely wrong about that as a generalisation intended to apply to scientists and similar professionals. If I was a scientist, then I'd tell the truth about what I think on scientific matters, just as I would on mathematical matters if I were a mathematician, and just as I do on philosophical matters, political matters, historical matters, and scientific matters, as someone with a keen interest in those subjects. If that's what I'd do, then it's probably also what a lot of other people would do, including a lot of actual scientists, mathematicians, and so on.
Quoting Meta
I'm going to set out these important distinctions once more: there is understanding [i]about[/I] something, the [i]extent[/I] of that understanding, and [i]sufficient[/I] understanding to know [i]what something is[/I].
I am claiming the last of the three: that we have access to a level of information which enables a sufficient, albeit incomplete, understanding of quarks, to at least state what they are. I have already done this, and I could even go into further detail. So that is not up for debate, unless you disbelieve what I have said about what quarks are, in which case the burden is on you. I can appeal to credible authority if need be, which would not be a logical fallacy.
What is irrelevant is your repeated pointing out of specific gaps in our knowledge (which, ironically, you've likely picked up from the very scientific literature that you claim to distrust), which, of course, indicates that we only have an [i]incomplete[/I] understanding of quarks (something that I have not denied), but does [i]not[/I] indicate what you need it to indicate in order to warrant your original claim, namely that we do not know what quarks are.
Quoting Meta
Finally. That was like getting blood out of a stone. It's obviously not irrelevant, and I can still barely believe that you do not get that. How on earth was I supposed to contemplate whether or not what you're saying about the soul is correct, and whether or not the analogy is apt, if I didn't even know what it was that you were talking about? Can't you see how absurd that is?
It's nonsense that I'd have to experience some gibberish term before you can tell me what it means. You've just done so. You should have done so sooner, instead of dragging this out, but never mind.
Quoting Meta
Importantly, neither truth nor knowledge comes down to perspective. The truth is independent, and only [i]my[/I] knowledge depends on what I know. Even if I don't know something, or even if you don't know something, that doesn't mean that [i]it isn't known[/I] or that it isn't [i]knowable[/I].
There are people who know more about this than you or I, and it's not an unfathomable or unobtainable skill to know when someone knows what they're talking about.
As for your point that there are cases where we don't have access to an experiment, and that we also have reason not to believe what we're told by the relevant authority, I have yet to hear a good reason from you in support of that. Some irrational distrust of authorities, of scientists, of the government, that you're in your bedroom and not a laboratory, and the irrational belief that we're all selfish liars, doesn't cut the mustard. You'll have to do better than that. These authorities on science are authorities on science [i]for a reason[/I]. They know their stuff.
I have right and reason to be skeptical about things Im not able to observe.
I have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of quarks as that for the existence of pink unicorns (zero in fact). I have reason to dismiss both if the only factor I take into consideration is direct evidence.
If you don't argue the case, then you've provided no reason for anyone to accept what you're claiming.
That's drawing attention to a superficial technicality with which to relate the one with the other, namely directness, and wilfully ignoring the big difference in terms of overall evidence. Quite misleading.
I'm also here to seek the truth, and that is more important to me than your feelings, with all due respect. Hence, if you claim to know of a truth, as you have done, yet I have my doubts about it, then my way of attempting to get to the truth of the matter involves encouraging you to argue the case, and to subject it to scrutiny to see how it holds up.
But, if you're going to pick up your toys and go home, then so be it. I disagree with your assessment, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.
Personally, I'd much rather discuss the topic than discuss [i]this[/I], which I view as an unproductive diversion.