I don’t think that is how most people use those words.
“Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
Facts are what we have observed and verified to the best of our ability. Evidence is a set of facts that can either confirm or falsify a claim.
It is not just that someone has observed something, for that would implicate all the subjectivity of human experience. Sometimes this talk of “facts” brings to mind antiquated philosophy of science long since abandoned because we can do better. Where the objectivity of science comes in is the fact that we have written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same results. And the fact is that this is a part of how academia works – where people do follow these procedures to get the same results as part of mastering the science as well as looking for opportunities to make their own contributions. Thus it is not so much that so and so has done such and such and got that result, but more that anybody can check it for themselves, and the people in science do so as part of the routine of further scientific inquiry. Any failure to get the same results is quickly reported and calls the results into question.
Considering that a belief is a cognitive process, how do you form your beliefs without evidence?
I understand that you can draw faith from your beliefs as fides - or trust is based on the beliefs you own. Now my trust can be testimony to others as in what I do, because of my faith, so it is evidence in itself.
To claim that someone holds a belief with no supporting evidence is an ad hominem based on the ignorance of the person who makes that claim, particularly if they claim that they can not form a belief about something because they have no evidence for it.
the presence of the dead body of “A” is a fact, it gives you absolute certainty that A is dead. The broken window is a fact e.g. proof that someone broke the window, not who broke it. In science my test results are facts with regards to the outcome of an experiment. However with regards to the theory they are going to confirm they are only evidence but not proof, as the only proof we can generate in science is a falsification of something which in turn forces us to change the theory.
The existence of the account statement in the Bashir Diana-gate case is a fact, proof of its existence, not of the validity of its statement. It was the testimony of the designer having created it that proved it not to be genuine. And with regards to the chair, we have ample evidence that chairs are supporting the weight of the person sitting on it and that people sit on chairs is a fact that you can observe everywhere and it is ample evidence that chairs will support people sitting upon them. However, the fact, e.g. observed evidence of chairs collapsing under the person sitting upon them is proof that chairs will not always fulfil their function - and you can guess who is in the business for that Broken Chair Accident Claims – Accident Claims.
Evidence is that what is apparent to the eye or mind, usually based on the contextual information and experience available to that mind. As in the case of the bank statement you can fall for false or planted evidence, but evidence there is. You can also make wrong conclusions from evidence if incomplete or evaluated wrongly. For example in archaeology, the physical existence of an object is a fact as it proves the physical existence of the object, but it does not proof what it was used for.
Without getting into neuroscience, monism vs. dualism, and all of that philosophical baggage . . .
My first instinct is to say that I choose to believe something is true, but I don’t think it is that simple. For example, I don’t think I could ever make myself believe the Earth is flat. It may be a combination of your worldview, how that worldview appraises evidence, what the evidence is, and the choices you make.
I think each of us decides for ourselves what will convince us. If testimony is convincing to you then it is convincing to you. When it comes to personal beliefs we decide for ourselves how that belief works. Science is a bit different because it is a group effort, but personal beliefs are yours to develop.
Perhaps it could be worded better. What Dawkins an others are alluding to is objective, demonstrable, and verifiable evidence. You are also agreeing with Dawkins that holding a belief without this type of evidence is a bad thing. While some atheists may think this, I don’t. I see nothing wrong with faith based beliefs, as long as they don’t crash into obvious objective truths.
In the same vein, trying to force faith based beliefs into science also gives the impression that science is superior to religious faith. Evolutionary creationism gets around this problem by treating them as equals. The belief that God created the universe doesn’t have to be science in order to hold truth, nor does it need empirical evidence in order to hold truth. We may disagree on whether EC holds truth, but I would never say that EC is false because it isn’t 100% scientific or lacks empirical evidence.
A long recognised problem that the scientific literature is biased as only the "successes get published, any failure to get the same result is usually not published It is actually only from those failures that you learn from, either telling you that you have not followed the procedure correctly - or that there is a critical factor not considered in the procedure.
Yes. In this science is no different than any of the other human activities such as law, medicine, journalism, and religion. There are the ideals we strive for and the reality of human failures to live up to those ideals. And yet most of the time justice does get served, people are helped by doctors, news does get reported, and people are inspired by religion. Likewise, most of the time science does succeed at getting at the truth. We see evidence of the successes in the steady improvement of human life. But yes, justice also misfires, doctors sometimes do more harm than good, journalists have made up stories or plagiarized, and we see terrible things done in religion. Thus all must be watched with some vigilance to check out how well we are living up to the ideals. The above article is part this for science – seeing the ways in which academia is failing the ideals of science at times. It just means that ideals require a constant struggle to live up to.
And BTW, my explanation of science does not represent some popular notion of how science works. Give me a break! Frankly, more than 99% of people have no idea of how science works. My explanation comes from my own first hand experience and seeing how it works for myself.
I don’t think atheist faith commitments are anymore uniform than theist faith commitments. I can’t imagine any atheist ever held on faith that God does not exist. Faith, where it is held at all, must be in affirmation of something, not mere negation. Not only do orthodox Christians hold different faith commitments than Muslims but even in the same church I think the indescribable is often imagined in different ways.
Why try to dress religious faith in the clothes of science if it isn’t about making religious faith look more legitimate?
We can see the reverse as well. Many ID/creationists try to denigrate evolution by claiming it is a religion. However, you never see scientists trying to denigrate ID/creationism by calling it a science. As yet another example, I have people tell me that I have faith as an atheist because I can’t prove God does not exist, as if having faith knocks me down a few pegs.
All too often, it is the theists who portray faith in a bad light.
to show that science and religion are in agreement does not prostitute faith to make it more palatable to aspire to the rules of science, not does the admission of having faith nock you down any peg, nboth only show that the logos rules both sides of perceived reality
Sure but then your definition should not dictate what other people are or what they believe either.
You are an atheist because you have decided there is no good reason to believe that God exists. That would indeed be about your beliefs – in this case it is a belief that there is insufficient justification for believing a god exists.
But what if I defined theists as those who are not in rebellion against God? That isn’t just about my belief is it? It is not a good definition. Likewise defining atheists as those without a belief in God is not a good definition either, because that isn’t just about you and your beliefs.
The poor definitions are those who try to include infants and other who haven’t even considered the question in order to make your position into some kind of default position. It is dishonest rhetoric.
One of the flaws in that rhetoric is that when people do consider the question, they can not only decide that they believe in God but can realize they have always believed in God – they just didn’t have a word for it before.
It is actually only from those failures that you learn from, either telling you that you have not followed the procedure correctly - or that there is a critical factor not considered in the procedure.