118
« on: April 15, 2006, 02:18:20 PM »
Alright, we've heard the pro-predictive-value science arguments. Seemingly very much opposed to most on this board, I'm going to be arguing for every way of knowing besides predictive-value science, which I hold in the utmost of contempt.
Let's start with faith, shall we?
Faith: [To show] great trust or confidence in something or someone. (Quoted from the Cambridge dictionary, brackets mine.)
Well, to begin, we all have faith to some extent, it's simply what he have faith in that differs. For instance, a Christian may have faith in God to solve their problems, just as many atheists and agnostics put faith into science to solve theirs. So, really, faith cannot be gotten around. Even the most skeptical of scientists must take someone's word for something. To attempt to learn science without taking anyone's word for anything would take far too long, and you'd likely be dead before you could put your then-incredibly-learned mind to good use.
So, who does one put one's faith into? Well, someone one respects, or someone who's proven themself worthy of trust. This differs for everyone; some trust scientists, some trust religious leaders, some trust their friends, etc. For instance, I, for one, hold the civilized men of the classical era (Roman, Greek, pre-Christianity) in the highest of regard, but there's always a bitter taste left in my mouth when the thought of the modern man and how far he's degenerated from these great people comes to mind. So, obviously, I treat any idea presented by men after a certain date with a heavy degree of skepticism, but I'll always treat those of men in what I like to call the Golden Age of Humanity with at least great respect, if not complete agreement.
All this said, however, faith has a major downside: Faith breeds generalization. For instance, let's say someone puts faith into Professor Horfmann Dumpelmanger (example name; not a real person), a scientist, REer, evolutionist, atheist, and what have you, and another puts his into Jesus Christ. Those people will likely have negative feelings toward one another before they even know each other based solely on the person they follow and a generalization held about all such people. Christ's follower would assume that Prof. Dumpelmanger's follower is an evil, heretical man who's sole purpose in life is to destroy all that's good and holy. Prof. Dumpelmanger's follower would think of the Christian as a small-minded sheep who blindly follows a dead guy. I'm not a peace-monger by any means, but nor do I think that such polarization can be a good thing under any circumstances.
Scholasticism/Documentarianism: There's far less to say on this one, as I've already touched on it with faith, and this shares many similarities with faith, as you're putting faith into another person's account of an event. However, there are often no other accounts available, and, unless you're so skeptical that you automatically assume that because a person existed he was an idiot (in which case I feel sorry for you, frankly), these eyewitness accounts are invaluable. I, for one, attempt to take context into account, but when it's not possible to do so, I generally trust such accounts.
Science: Well, as Erasmus has stated, there's two ways to conduct science: Explanatory-value science and predictive-value science.
I subscribe to explanatory-value science, myself. I think that, as usual, Erasmus seems to have described it very well: "[Theory] A [is] better than theory B[,] case that A [explains] more than B per unit complexity." (Brackets mine, mainly changing past to present tense.)
This is the more practical because one always wants the maximum result for the minimum amount of effort, and this method allows you to achieve that. Going much further than explanatory-value science nets you a worse return on the Effort:Results ratio than you'd gotten before you passed that point, and going so far as to get an inefficient return on one's effort is simply impractical.
Lastly, this may be off-topic, but for those with whom I've a standing debate, or anyone who's expecting a reply from me on a topic, a friend of mine has kindly agreed to relieve me of my internet cables (on my request) until I've completed the ridiculous workload assigned to me over the Easter break, and I know he'll comply whether I like it or not. I'm not sure quite when, over the course of the week, this will occur, but I may not reply to anything for a few days when it does, which is why I brought it up.
--Chal
[EDIT: I assumed, in the example comprising the majority of my second paragraph, that it was implied that taking all such things in context regardless of the speaker is, when possible, of course better than blind faith in such accounts. Noting upon rereading said paragraph that the example comes near to implying blind faith, which it's not meant to do, I must add that now.]