Do You Believe in Water?

[Scott Mayers]

Oka

I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ?

IT DOESN"T!!! I sent you to the book to look for the part where he talks about the H2O analogy. You brought this other stuff he talks about to this conversation.

I was trying to listen from the first part and each is 2hrs long. So when I realized that book was about defending what I noted, I raised it.

So basically you are saying that you believe that 'belief' with respect to the analogy of believing that water exists is of the same kind as what one defaults to trust over many years in 'practice', not simply a heads-or-tails vote to favor religion based on potential risks of being wrong, correct?

That's probably as close as you're going to get to rewording what I said, yes.

I'm not going to pursue the Islamic stuff with you because there is just too much to unravel there.

I agree that what we belief has a basis in reality as water's existence. What I think that Pascal's Wager was referring to was in light of seeing or understanding options in light of one internalizing doubt. In other words, one can 'believe' in X by default of NOT questioning something. But once you invest or learn OF other alternative arguments that demonstrate dissonance with what one knows, the 'belief' that one grew up with CAN be transferred into a grey region where one DOES see a "logical" contradiction in what they believed prior to their lifelong defaulted positions.

As such, I think Pascal's Wager was a SECONDARY reflection on oneself when such contradiction threatens what one knew before to 'decide' whether to adapt one opinion or the other. The original 'trust' one had in a worldview is threatened in often an "emotional" way. As such, one has to weigh whether one should abandon the emotional connection they had to the old beliefs versus taking the new ones that, with respect to their emotions still preventing them from abandoning the old, places them at odds SHOULD they discover they were originally correct BUT their choice to take on the new reality penalizes them FOR that decision.

I'm guessing that for Pascal, it was to the uncertainty of the novel truths that compete with all they knew comfort in before, he was suggesting a practical means to 'conserve' what one has known because the contradiction of their own versus the new ideas leaves them in reasonable discomfort, ...itself still a REALITY. If one could resolve the factors that enable them to BE comfortable with the changes, their internal emotions, one might reason, should adapt with ease. This does not occur often. It is the lack of 'closure' with respect to the old beliefs that prevents one to adapt to some new view that has also been understood as something 'bad' all their lives.

Of course, no matter what, the truth is the truth. But I believe Pascal's Wager was more about opting to remain conservative when or where the threat of being in error of the old thoughts do not risk themselves or others for holding them anyways. It is similar to the saying, "why beat a dead horse?" If the horse is dead, it lacks being defeated more regardless. But the virtue of allowing the illusion, even if wrong, has in itself a non-threatening function that may also serve to be of benefit to themselves and/or others. We don't, for instance, think there is something wrong with allowing children to play imaginary games, right? You could possibly teach them that logically no Santa Claus exists. But the 'lie' is interpreted as still being valid for its utility. The LOSS of such belief may as equally foster problems in and of itself.

And my own Nihilism is precisely what many might fear, even in an atheist community. That is, we might definitively prove that nothing we do is any more nor less valid. But the abandonment to at least 'pretend' some virtues over vices, may lead to the anarchy that can occur.

I don't approve of accepting the religious position yet completely understand how and why truth itself can potentially be destructive. Even if only a minority of those out there might use such 'truth' to advocate behaviors that would potentially threaten us as a society to the extreme, we all know by experience that when such instability occurs in even few people, it has more power to create alarm and cause an acceleration of such reflected fears of one another destructively.

The recent political realities today are just such an example.

Trump, for instance, fears a rigged election. It DOES in reality represent something possible. Yet by proposing it, should it not make others fear considering that it appears that he is suggesting retaliation should he NOT be elected by dismissing the validity of the election if he loses but accept it when he wins? Even though in this example that to accept the POSSIBILITY OF A RIGGED ELECTION is 'true', as a type of "scientific" rational truth about politics, you can see that if we lack 'faith' in the system as imperfect as it is, the chaos of doubt about WHAT people assumed about the system itself is in question. And if this makes many, which it will likely do, to avoid bothering to go to the voting booth, Trump has a real possibility of winning merely by default of that confusion.

I also have 'faith' that truth MAY overthrow these dilemmas and why my signature below. But I am also 'cursed' now by taking a bite of that fruit and am now as equally confused at what "the gods' " wisdom [Nature itself] presents with regards to humanity. And my logical nihilism reflects that understanding of what the old Adam and Eve lesson is about. Death ironically IS the only absolution that solves the problem of the curse. And the curse is realizing that. I now actually fear the reverse: that it might be the case that we could NEVER die and be tortured from being able to reach that perfect state of 'balance' that death provides. I hope I'm wrong.

[Lausten]

Really. Just not reading your posts Scott. I don't know what you are saying. And not just the metaphors. Grammar. Definitions. So many problems.

[Scott Mayers]

Really. Just not reading your posts Scott. I don't know what you are saying. And not just the metaphors. Grammar. Definitions. So many problems.

Thanks for the insult. Always nice to hear. Was this supposed to make me improve so that I could hopefully appeal to you?

Maybe Twitter is more your style.

[Lausten]

Really. Just not reading your posts Scott. I don't know what you are saying. And not just the metaphors. Grammar. Definitions. So many problems.

Thanks for the insult. Always nice to hear. Was this supposed to make me improve so that I could hopefully appeal to you?

Maybe Twitter is more your style.

Just letting you know. Don't care what you do with it.

[Scott Mayers]

Really. Just not reading your posts Scott. I don't know what you are saying. And not just the metaphors. Grammar. Definitions. So many problems.

Thanks for the insult. Always nice to hear. Was this supposed to make me improve so that I could hopefully appeal to you?

Maybe Twitter is more your style.

Just letting you know. Don't care what you do with it.

Yes, your depth should fit in a tweet just fine.

[Sherman]

well,
after all this time we still are coming up with the dumbest reason ever to justify ones belief. amazing, it just amazes how long winded pretty writers just keep circle jerking themselves with BS and self affirming head nodding.

as long as you focus on what we don't know, people like you will never get an answer. But darn will you write a lot about it.

[Scott Mayers]

well,
after all this time we still are coming up with the dumbest reason ever to justify ones belief. amazing, it just amazes how long winded pretty writers just keep circle jerking themselves with BS and self affirming head nodding.

as long as you focus on what we don't know, people like you will never get an answer. But darn will you write a lot about it.

There are various different people here with different views. Can you narrow down who or which ones you disagree with?

[Sherman]

we need to learn how to believe.
We need to understand that personality type expresses a belief and its not a belief that forms the person's personality type.
To a degree

The first question I would have "is why don't you believe in water again?". I would have to address the emotional state of the person that doesn't believe in water. The stance is so illogical that there must be an emotional component that needs to be addressed. Not believing in water is actually a hologram for something deeper the person is trying to justify to them self.

The op's start is made up so we can make up anything we want. I would toss in unicorns and rainbows for color, I like colors. yeah, we all get that we believe what others tell us to a degree.

We can assume that we can limit error and bias by adding people. Its not perfect but its all we have. Live in fear of the unknown or live in the light of education. its our choice.

[Scott Mayers]

we need to learn how to believe.
We need to understand that personality type expresses a belief and its not a belief that forms the person's personality type.
To a degree

The first question I would have "is why don't you believe in water again?". I would have to address the emotional state of the person that doesn't believe in water. The stance is so illogical that there must be an emotional component that needs to be addressed. Not believing in water is actually a hologram for something deeper the person is trying to justify to them self.

The op's start is made up so we can make up anything we want. I would toss in unicorns and rainbows for color, I like colors. yeah, we all get that we believe what others tell us to a degree.

We can assume that we can limit error and bias by adding people. Its not perfect but its all we have. Live in fear of the unknown or live in the light of education. its our choice.

Yes, I think I agree. When someone says they believe in something we find at odds, it doesn't make that other person defaulted to be 'wrong' but could be about some other cause, like the 'personality' you point to. I think that the OP may include this in his thoughts too but we'd have to invest in the linked discussion at depth to his reference and his own participation here to determine.

[He was 'tweeting' an opinion just as a bird who calls out wanting approval and why he didn't approve of my own reflected thoughts in depth. That's why I referred him to 'Twitter' which was designed to opine without expecting reflected investment of his own. ]

[digress]

I've been listening to Sam Harris' reading of his book "End of Faith". He is doing it on his Podcast, free. With commentary.

In Chapter 2 he talks about what "belief" means and how no one just decides to believe in God, or would describe their thought process as simply believing and not needing evidence. They might compare scientific evidence to faith evidence, but they still have a view of the world that supports their belief, otherwise, they wouldn't hold it.

He compares this to his belief that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. He learned that, but he couldn't prove it. He would barely know how to start the experiments to separate the two parts and then he wouldn't be sure what to do with them to prove the ratio. Believing H2O is a valid representation of the thing we drink is based on centuries of experiments and mountains of evidence that most of us don't bother attempting to fully comprehend.

Instead, we look at the world that is that resulted from that knowledge. The people who do understand it have done other things with hydrogen and oxygen. The knowledge of H2O is related to all the other knowledge of the periodic table. If someone said H2O is wrong, they would have to explain all of those other things as well and explain how we arrived at that wrong conclusion, but managed to invent SCUBA gear or hydrogen batteries.

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

this is great and hes right. but belief in god is too often based off a persons internal observations. this makes it much less convincing vs. a practice based off external explanations (belief in god vs. water)

but taking his example of water: understanding the science of water (h20) is insignificant because that understanding wont impact my day-to-day life as a common peasant. on the other hand, belief in god is a day-to-day reminder. so even a tiny amount will have an impact on my peasant upbringing.

hopefully, with forums like this one some people will mature beyond it. which is also why we need to stop fighting believers pls

[Lausten]

this is great and hes right. but belief in god is too often based off a persons internal observations. this makes it much less convincing vs. a practice based off external explanations (belief in god vs. water)

but taking his example of water: understanding the science of water (h20) is insignificant because that understanding wont impact my day-to-day life as a common peasant. on the other hand, belief in god is a day-to-day reminder. so even a tiny amount will have an impact on my peasant upbringing.

hopefully, with forums like this one some people will mature beyond it. which is also why we need to stop fighting believers pls

Your usual confusing mix of commentary. Never quite sure where you are coming from.

Obviously water has a lot of impact on you everyday, the difference is knowing what H2O means, and that's why the analogy works so well. People who believe in God believe he is impacting them all the time. They justify it based it on what others have told them, but if they look into it, even just slightly, like reading Exodus chapter 20, they find they can dismantle the belief rather easily and it won't impact them at all. They might lose some friends if they talk about it, but the methods of making friends will not change. Looking into the chemical nature of water however, will only confirm the science and the methods that arrived at the science. It will require dismantling years of science and experimentation and knowledge to explain why water is not H2O. God on the other hand, is actually maintained by ignoring all of that.

[Poodle]

I think I see what Lausten may be saying.

There are scientific 'facts' which I take on faith because they're way outside my field. Nuclear power, for instance. I know how the entire generating station works but I do not KNOW what the truth of the matter is as far as nuclear fission goes - I have no direct experience and no real knowledge. I choose to believe what I'm told because it saves time and wear on my brain. It's my faith in science, if you like. It works for me. It explains the world for me. It is so plain to me that the universe has such rules and regulations.

Then there are those who believe in gods for exactly the same reasons and with the same arguments.

EDIT: Having just read Lausten's latest post, maybe that's not what he meant.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

yeah Poodle: great review of faith in science: what you can use, see, it works, go visit.

Not so much with the god thing.

[digress]

this is great and hes right. but belief in god is too often based off a persons internal observations. this makes it much less convincing vs. a practice based off external explanations (belief in god vs. water)

but taking his example of water: understanding the science of water (h20) is insignificant because that understanding wont impact my day-to-day life as a common peasant. on the other hand, belief in god is a day-to-day reminder. so even a tiny amount will have an impact on my peasant upbringing.

hopefully, with forums like this one some people will mature beyond it. which is also why we need to stop fighting believers pls

Your usual confusing mix of commentary. Never quite sure where you are coming from.

Obviously water has a lot of impact on you everyday, the difference is knowing what H2O means, and that's why the analogy works so well. People who believe in God believe he is impacting them all the time. They justify it based it on what others have told them, but if they look into it, even just slightly, like reading Exodus chapter 20, they find they can dismantle the belief rather easily and it won't impact them at all. They might lose some friends if they talk about it, but the methods of making friends will not change. Looking into the chemical nature of water however, will only confirm the science and the methods that arrived at the science. It will require dismantling years of science and experimentation and knowledge to explain why water is not H2O. God on the other hand, is actually maintained by ignoring all of that.

you wouldn't be able to understand where i was coming from by your stating that people justify belief based on what others have told them, which is incorrect, and the notion i was referring to by it being justified internally.

[Lausten]

you wouldn't be able to understand where i were coming from by your stating that people justify belief based on what others have told them, which is incorrect, and the notion i were referring to by it being justified internally.

I woulda done been better undertandin of you where were using a language that more closely looked like English, which your's isn't by it being what it is.

[digress]

I woulda done been better undertandin of you where were using a language that more closely looked like English, which your's isn't by it being what it is.

you got me. well done. next time ill use english

[Gord]

I woulda done been better undertandin of you where were using a language that more closely looked like English, which your's isn't by it being what it is.

you got me. well done. next time ill use english

I'll

[OlegTheBatty]

I woulda done been better undertandin of you where were using a language that more closely looked like English, which your's isn't by it being what it is.

you got me. well done. next time ill use english

I'll

Digress did ill use English.

[TJrandom]

I sometimes use engrish - our r`s and l`s frequently being audibly indistinguishable, and I have met many who used singlish... in Singapore, of course. But I also use a sperring checkel which usuarry fixes things...

[Upton_O_Goode]

I've been listening to Sam Harris' reading of his book "End of Faith". He is doing it on his Podcast, free. With commentary.

In Chapter 2 he talks about what "belief" means and how no one just decides to believe in God, or would describe their thought process as simply believing and not needing evidence. They might compare scientific evidence to faith evidence, but they still have a view of the world that supports their belief, otherwise, they wouldn't hold it.

He compares this to his belief that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. He learned that, but he couldn't prove it. He would barely know how to start the experiments to separate the two parts and then he wouldn't be sure what to do with them to prove the ratio. Believing H2O is a valid representation of the thing we drink is based on centuries of experiments and mountains of evidence that most of us don't bother attempting to fully comprehend.

Instead, we look at the world that is that resulted from that knowledge. The people who do understand it have done other things with hydrogen and oxygen. The knowledge of H2O is related to all the other knowledge of the periodic table. If someone said H2O is wrong, they would have to explain all of those other things as well and explain how we arrived at that wrong conclusion, but managed to invent SCUBA gear or hydrogen batteries.

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

So here I'm going to jump in, having read only the first post in this thread, just because it intrigues me.

By "believe in" are we to understand "perceive as real"? We have direct experience, shared with others and never seriously challenged that there is a substance known in English as water. If asked what it is, we can describe it approximately as liquid, potable (sometimes), capable of being frozen as ice, capable of being produced by applying heat to snow or ice, etc., etc. That is so basic, and such common sense that it makes NO sense to analyze it any further.

It's been known since the time of Priestley and Lavoisier that running an electric current through water will cause it to separate into two gases with volumes approximately 2 to 1. That's an experiment I myself have performed. But to identify those gases as hydrogen and oxygen would take us into yet more definitions: What is the diagnostic test we apply when we call a gas hydrogen or oxygen? And so forth. My belief that water is nothing more than a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is based, like most scientific facts on (1) my trust in the integrity of scientists who know more than I do and (2) the way that proposition harmonizes with a large variety of other propositions. It's the interlocking of one theory with another theory or a large set of facts that lends support and credibility to them.

Rather than water, I think, it would make more sense to ask about the reality of radio waves, which no one has ever perceived through the senses. We use them in physical theories to explain a large number of phenomena, and again, it's the interlocking of all those theories that provides their mutual support of one another. At one time, there were scientific (well, philosophical) doctrines about phlogiston and ether, neither of which is now regarded as real. But at the time, these hypothetical entities explained a number of things. But in the end, there were too many observations that seemed to point in another direction, and they were abandoned. Why anyone needs to say he "believes in" radio waves is the real mystery. Radio waves explain things, and they are useful. If they should ever cease to explain things, and we found some better way of explaining things, we could jettison this concept. To say they exist as physical objects adds nothing to what we know.

What we can perceive with the senses may be regarded as something having physical reality. But when physicists get done analyzing that reality, we are left with a lot of hypothetical constructs like quarks whose "existence" is inferred from physical theories and verified by measurements with instruments whose functioning itself is interpreted by means of physical theories. We are mired in theories, and there is no way out. The simplistic metaphysic that was appropriate in the time of Aristotle simply won't do any more.

But I'm beginning to ramble....

[Nobrot]

So here I'm going to jump in, having read only the first post in this thread,

You should have left it at that.

We are mired in theories, and there is no way out. The simplistic metaphysic that was appropriate in the time of Aristotle simply won't do any more.

Mired in theories? Since when was this a problem? And wtf distinguishes simplistic metaphysics from complex metaphysics?

[Upton_O_Goode]

So here I'm going to jump in, having read only the first post in this thread,

You should have left it at that.

We are mired in theories, and there is no way out. The simplistic metaphysic that was appropriate in the time of Aristotle simply won't do any more.

Mired in theories? Since when was this a problem? And wtf distinguishes simplistic metaphysics from complex metaphysics?

Did I say it was a problem to be mired in theories? It's perfectly fine with me.

Aristotle is simplistic in that he can only handle direct and inverse proportion, what we would call multilinear relations. And he thinks teleology plays an important role in physics. It doesn't.

[Gord]

So here I'm going to jump in, having read only the first post in this thread,

You should have left it at that.

We are mired in theories, and there is no way out. The simplistic metaphysic that was appropriate in the time of Aristotle simply won't do any more.

Mired in theories? Since when was this a problem? And wtf distinguishes simplistic metaphysics from complex metaphysics?

Did I say it was a problem to be mired in theories? It's perfectly fine with me.

Aristotle is simplistic in that he can only handle direct and inverse proportion, what we would call multilinear relations. And he thinks teleology plays an important role in physics. It doesn't.

Jeez, that guy's gotta be really old by now though.

[Upton_O_Goode]

So here I'm going to jump in, having read only the first post in this thread,

You should have left it at that.

We are mired in theories, and there is no way out. The simplistic metaphysic that was appropriate in the time of Aristotle simply won't do any more.

Mired in theories? Since when was this a problem? And wtf distinguishes simplistic metaphysics from complex metaphysics?

Did I say it was a problem to be mired in theories? It's perfectly fine with me.

Aristotle is simplistic in that he can only handle direct and inverse proportion, what we would call multilinear relations. And he thinks teleology plays an important role in physics. It doesn't.

Jeez, that guy's gotta be really old by now though.

If only his ardent fans were as extinct as he is!! I once took the trouble to compare his account of rotational motion/levers with the clean, elegant presentation given by Archimedes a century later. It's like the clear light of day after groping around in the dark. Not that that was Aristotle's fault. He came at the beginning, and he made some brilliant advances on what had gone before.

But there are still people in the creationist camp who think his approach to physics, especially space and time, makes sense. (One article published some years ago in that prominent scientific outlet "National Review" explained that the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to take account of the fact that light was a wave whose medium of propagation is the earth's magnetic field. No wonder they couldn't detect any difference in velocity in different directions! That meant Newton's absolute---Aristotelian---space was a physical reality. How the gravitational field differed from absolute space and what the reality of each of them consisted of was left unexplained.)

[Gord]

...the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to take account of the fact that light was a wave whose medium of propagation is the earth's magnetic field.

It's a wonder any light shines on these people at all: https://astronomynow.com/2016/01/30/und ... netic-sun/

[TJrandom]

...the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to take account of the fact that light was a wave whose medium of propagation is the earth's magnetic field.

It's a wonder any light shines on these people at all: https://astronomynow.com/2016/01/30/und ... netic-sun/

Nice site... Thanks,

[Upton_O_Goode]

Small correction to what I said: I now remember it was said to be the earth's GRAVITATIONAL field that conducts light and refutes the standard interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

This article, as I remember, appeared during the 1980s and showed no awareness that experimental verification of both special and general relativity had been made by putting precise atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites and sending them around the world. In fact, by GR, clocks in orbit run faster than those on the ground, due to the difference in the gravitational field (which is a larger effect than the special-relativistic slowing predicted for the orbiting clocks). In order to synchronize the clocks in the GPS system with those on the ground within 30 nanoseconds (the precision required for the system to function), it is necessary to constantly reset them by the difference predicted in GR.

But for people still wedded to an Aristotelian model of time and space, none of that will matter. They don't have time to study all the differential geometry they'd have to know to understand it. And, in any case, their audience will never know the difference.

[AliasJamesCarpenter]

Hi Lausten,

No disrecpect, but I have no time to reread the whole topic.

Would you please clarify if you still need the answer for this:

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

Or if something has changed along the way, please straighten it out.

Cheers

[Lausten]

Hi Lausten,

No disrecpect, but I have no time to reread the whole topic.

Would you please clarify if you still need the answer for this:

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

Or if something has changed along the way, please straighten it out.

Cheers

I never needed an answer, and most of this thread is not worth your time. The point of the challenge is to get the challenged to think about what it would take to make an argument against the proposition that H20 is the correct formula for water. You would have to comment not only on how elements bond but what the fundamental building blocks of the universe are. You would have to undo the entire scientific method. Hopefully, that prevents anyone from trying to argue the minutiae of those facts and methods.

[Lausten]

But I'm beginning to ramble....

I think you get the point, it's "theories all the way down" you might say. Theories being sophisticated, well tested arguments based on empirical evidence that is.

[Gord]

AliasJamesCarpenter seems to have been deleted.

[Upton_O_Goode]

But I'm beginning to ramble....

I think you get the point, it's "theories all the way down" you might say. Theories being sophisticated, well tested arguments based on empirical evidence that is.

Yep, there is no escaping them. (There's also, as I find, no way to SAY there's no escaping them that doesn't leave a hint that you wish you COULD escape them. So, just to be clear: I don't wish that.)

[Skepticon of Pyrrhonia]

Water exists. I do not have trouble understanding that the liquid properties of H2O is understood as states of matter. It can be a solid, liquid, or a gas. Each phase has unique properties. This is taught in high school level science classes.

[Cadmusteeth]

The issue whether or not you can prove water exists, as opposed to just showing enough evidence that it does.

[Lausten]

This is not a discussion about whether or not water exists. From the OP:

He compares this to his belief that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. He learned that, but he couldn't prove it. He would barely know how to start the experiments to separate the two parts and then he wouldn't be sure what to do with them to prove the ratio. Believing H2O is a valid representation of the thing we drink is based on centuries of experiments and mountains of evidence that most of us don't bother attempting to fully comprehend.

Then I said, try to take the opposite stance, try to prove that H20 does not represent what we call water.

[Gustaave]

Your argument is all wet. /thread