I want to point out that making a stupid decision does not have to mean a person is stupid in general. Some very intelligent people make some very foolish mistakes every day. The thing I find stupid is the act of deciding that you cannot be wrong. When one makes the decision that they know the “true” origins of our reality with absolute certainty they are being ignorant to the extreme. That is the grandest of puzzles we face. We are still working on the border. We haven’t even begun to study the tricky jagged middle pieces of the puzzle. Those are the ones that will finally reveal what the picture looks like.
I actually feel sorry for people who think that there is nothing left to that greatest of questions: How did we get here? While I’m sure my pity is unwelcome, I feel they are closing themselves to the most challenging questions we have. The best part of the whole setup is that the more we study and ask questions the more things have been revealed to us! When we end this process by saying something is the ultimate truth, with not a glimmer of presentable evidence in favor of such an assertion, well, then we succumb to superstition and conceit. I must say that seems stupid from where I am standing. This goes for the absolute atheist or the absolute theist.
But hey, it’s our legal right to be stupid as long as we don’t hurt anybody, so I don’t hate or feel disdain for anyone because of these beliefs. I just think that such faith is foolish and premature.
If I have faith in something, I act as if it is true until I believe otherwise.
If I believe in something, I act as though it is true until I know otherwise.
If I know something, I act as though it is true until I have evidence otherwise.
At no time do I discount what another says, but the higher something is up the scale, the more it will take to persuade me otherwise and until my view changes I will act as if what I have faith in, believe, know is true. I will attempt to persuade others, but I will not try to force others to my view because I know my view is wrong in (many) places and is allways possible to be changed.
I quote Merriam-Webster on the definition of Theory:
These definitions come closer to the gist of my previous thread than the definition of hypothesis. HYPOTHESIS would imply insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs> whereas THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. Since I am a religious man, I find a greater likelihood of the existance of God but then thats just me.
we’ll forgo semmatics for a bit and delve into how a hypothesis is formulated based on logic and philosophy. You make an assumption, a hypothesis, a statement with no basis in fact just for the sake of arguement. There is an implicit belief that this is true or else why would you even argue about it? Why prove something is false if you believe something is already false? (to prove it false to someone else? but how was it done the first time?) Anyway, the hypothesis is drawn put and tested to its logical conclusion. You start out this this hypothesis, this belief, and then prove it right or wrong.
In science , one does not randomly make equations and a hypothesis is born. Even when you serrendipitiously discover something, you form a hypothesis to explain its existence and then try to prove your hypothesis. The assumption comes first. The proof afterwards.
Oh but you see that’s in the OLD Testament… it don’t count!! I can still believe every little word printed in the New Testament. Mark said an angle told him Jesus said so!
PPPffffff
)