Faith and Reason, a few thoughts

Gee, Bridget, not only haven't you read accurately about Sartre, you haven't read my post on perception, logic, and language, where I talk about induction. You keep making these leaps of faith and coming up short. It isn't workng for you.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 21

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:56pm

Sir, define faith. Faith is the belief in things not see [or perceived], but hoped for. That's the Biblical definition and I stand by it as the most accurate.

Take the car argument again.

X hears the brakes squeeling, a sure sign that the break pads are down to bare steel or an oil/brake fluid leak that would weaken the brakes response for anyone atleast accustomed to driving theirs to such condition, and alerts Y to the problem. Y says it's nothing to worry about because he thinks X is irrational for arbitrary reasons. Y's brakes give out and he does wind up in a wreck.

I think that's the easiest way to some it up. Now, Y never ever isolated the source of the noise not coming from the brake pads. X was right to point out the issue because it's a verified fact that such issues can be a problem. That means, X was not in the wrong and was inductively right, and Y was wrong because he never isolated the claim aka falsified it beyond the obvious facts which were apparent. That means, when an inductive statement is proven by apparent fact and that the opposing viewpoint/side never isolates that fact apart from the causal chain(s) asserted by the proposing viewpoint/side, then it follows that the initial statement is true by the facts given. If the opposing side isolates the given fact apart from the proposed causal chain, then it is wrong. That is how inductive reasoning operates, Nick, and you seem to be hiding from it. There is no faith in inductive reasoning, it's all explanations of REAL PHENOMENA NOT THINGS UNSEEN OR HOPED FOR. Thusly, your claim is false categorically that inductive reasoning entails faith.

Inductive reasoning does entail some assumptions, but that is not the same as faith, because assumptions are often made to eliminate alternatives. It's exactly what is done with genetic algorithms in computer science, it exhausts all the assumed, or possible, variables until either it hits upon the right one giving the programmer the solution or it does not. If you hit upon a sufficient number of correct variables via assumptions, then you know more than you did not. That is why Hume's Inductive Fallacy is in fact a fallacy as well, it assumes that any degree of uncertainty is equivocal to total uncertainty. And that does not work in the real world, where people make inductive statements via assumptions everyday. From Joe the mechanic trying to figure out what's wrong with your car to Ted the Physicist trying to explain why a certain particle mass keeps showing up in the data collection on an linear accelerator. Both must take steps to decrease uncertainty by making assumptions, especially ones that they both can equally dispose of when proven to be invalid/unsound.

What I can't understand is why you think otherwise. You think feelings come into the equation when they don't. I would love to see a more in-depth post by you that isn't half-baked garbage. You even got a friend of mine, who's an MS in math and wanting to study philosophy all wondering where you get these ideas, and why you can't set down your definitions in stone! And he hasn't written you off, he's far more open to ideas than me. So, please, make a case that isn't on such weak grounds before you totally lose all credibility with me. :-P

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/15, 8:59pm)

Post 22

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:03am

Have you read my entire post on perception, logic, and language? What specifcally do you find bothersome there? Don't just say it is all half-baked garbage.

We use inductive reasoning to conclude that the sun will appear to arise each morning. (I say "appear" because I realize the sun does not arise. It stays still but appears to arise as our earth rotates into position each day.) The man with the car with bad breaks uses the same reasoning to conclude his brakes will hold. They always held in the past, just like the sun always appeared to rise in past mornings. Yes, he is a little stupid about squeaky noses and the wear and tear on breaks, but his nductve reasoning is intact.

BTW, do you know what "mauvaise foi" means?

bis bald

Nick

Post 23

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:24pm

Yet, your claim that it's the correct form of induction is wrong. Induction isn't just taking from past experiences, it's taking from variables and looking for invariancy. The regular appearance of the Sun may be roughly invariant, but it also has some degree of change, to which constitute other facts we have derived, such as the change in the length of daytime/nighttime throughout the year. We even figured out that stars can be see around the Sun due to gravity lensing, and so on. Induction is not just making a normative prediction out of the ether, it's taking from what is there. And that requires no faith. And that's why your argument cannot hold at any level beyond the classical Naive Induction fallacy, which is commonly known in philosophy and science.

Whether or not you admit it, you have lost all credibility on an issue to which is the most important to my degree major, and have by no means refuted my point. You just make generalities like a Dr.Phil-clone, and never make a stand. You talk about your faulty argument about perception, to which was shot down from numerous angles and you keep it up. Dude, it's time to check your premises, because I always check mine in a debate no matter what. Can you accept that induction is based on data that is accessible at various levels/scales of reality and that no faith is ever required in deriving any conclusion? If not, then please click the x box on your browser window now, because it's clear there is no reasoning with you on an issue you have barely an inkling of understanding.

I am officially finished with you.

-- Bridget

Post 24

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 9:06pm

I am officially finished with you.

I hope you mean it this time, Bridget. Inductive reasoning will always be inconclusive, unless it is perfect induction, which is really only assertion, a different kind of deduction, from specific to specific. If we check all the specific instances or objects and make a statement about one of those checked instances or objects, there is no leap. It is really only a tautology, only five abadabs exist and they are all bugabos, therefore this abadab is a bugabo. The more common induction is thousands of abadabs have been checked and they are all bugaobs, therefore the next abadab we find has a high degree of certainty to be a bugabo. The s a leap of faith. In most instances, you will never get to 100% certainty, except for maybe that statement.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 25

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:22am

(Me) One last time and I will try to explain to you.

(Nick) The s a leap of faith. In most instances, you will never get to 100% certainty, except for maybe that statement.

(Me) That is not faith. Again, faith is defined as the hope for things unseen/perceived. There is no hope in any valid inductive statement.

Show me where, do not say something is without evidence. Show me where a physicist has 'faith' in finding a particle in a linear accelerator experiment. Show me 'faith' in the actions of an automechanic trying to figure out what is wrong with a car. Show me the 'faith' in when an astronomer tries to explain the increased rotator of galaxies without any apparent extra mass. There is none in any case I provided. And you seem to dance around the definition of faith and try to shoe horn it into things it cannot.

By your definition any act of uncertainty is therefore faith based rather than based on probability, which is no based on any emotion of hope but rather a consistency in observation. And you seem to miss that point again and again. That's why I say I am finished with you. Because you sit there and post the most basic inaccurate, totally wrong statements about induction and you probably never even taken a university class(es) in scientific methodology. You probably never did any experiments to get credit for a class. And you probably read the crap of a PoMo author and take their claims as right. Essentially, you are like the apologist christian/muslim/etc that dances around a definition and tries to shoe horn it on to stuff it cannot. And that is as simple as it gets.

Here is my criteria for you, if you want to take this LAST, and complete, chance to prove your case.

1) Get citations and definitions of faith that accord to your proposition.

2) Make sure no contigency can be avoided in said definition.

3) Make sure you provide in a consistent, NON-GENERALIZED manner.

4) Make sure you use ACCURATE EXAMPLES.

5) Make sure your analogies are resistent to disanalogies.

And that is all you got to do. But you never do it. Get it in your head that generalities, and faulty analogies will not be accepted. And get it in your head that definitions stick or you are basically avoiding them.

So, stop the bunk and start really debating or tottle off, because you have totally wasted my time and patience in explaining things to you. Your Exie bunk doesn't fit, get it?

-- Bridget

Post 26

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:56am

Go away, Bridget. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Nick

Post 27

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:56pm

Go away, Bridget. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Nick

Yeah, I guess she should just take you on faith...

Post 28

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:14pm

She doesn't have to take me anyway. I don't care to spend my life insisting that circles are not squares and squares are not circles, just because someone redefines circles as squares.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 29

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:34pm

No, you just want people to sit with your argument and accept it as right. And in many ways this is what a religious person does, especially the fundamentalists. Nicky, can I assume you're an exie fundie then? Hell, that's a wild 'mind virus' if I ever found now, then again who knows. ^_^

-- Bridget officially won the debate since Nick could not come up with a proper rebuttal. ^_^

Post 30

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:51pm

Bridget officially won the debate since Nick could not come up with a proper rebuttal. ^_^

BTW, do you know what "mauvaise foi" means?

Nick

Post 31

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:57am

What does the phrase 'bad faith' have to do with the argument?

Here's what a website said about Sartre's Bad Faith concept.

Empasizing the radical freedom of all human action, Sartre warns of the dangers of mauvaise foi (bad faith), acting on the self-deceptive motives by which people often try to elude responsibility for what they do.

Now, where am I being self-deceptive? Because if you're claiming as such then you must prove it. Essentially, the plead to this concept is exactly the same type of fallacy known as Mind Reading. You can't read my mind, nor know my emotional states, thus you cannot plead to them unless you are a mind reader. And if you're a mind reader, Nick, then please go to James Randi and get his million dollar prize, k? Until then, keep your mind reading fallacy to yourself.

Also, Sartre isn't talking about induction here, he's talking about introspection. He's talking about how one has to be honest with one's self to be able to live in this life. The site takes the example of an addict who denies his/her state of addiction. All of these have nothing to do with any argument to the issue of induction, or any other epistemology. In a sense, you're trying to attach emotional/psychological states to logical states of which there is no means, method, and/or theory that supposes any attachment between the two.

As such, I think the fact you are using Sartre's work improperly is proof that you haven't a basic understanding his work or that of Rand's or any other philosopher. Your ignorance knows no bounds, Nick. And the fact you pull this flatly flawed stunt is just another nail in your coffin of credibility.

Cheers.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/18, 11:59am)

Post 32

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:07pm

I think you are badly self-deceived if you think you won any debate with me. It's 'bad faith' for you to think you know all there is about faith. And, all this is self-evident to any rational person who reads your posts.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 33

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:20pm

So faith is like some magical place where fairies and such live right? Dude, do you aceept there is one basic subsuming definition to a concept like faith? If you do then, there is nothing more to know about it than that definition and its application. Beyond that, there is nothing more to know.

What you can't seem to grasp is that faith is not something magical, nor vast in conception, it is simply hoping for things which are unseen/unperceived. Faith is also called blind for a reason, because one must take something on the whole without question when one takes it on faith. You and I don't take anything on faith by the fact that we keep jousting on the issue of faith. So, for us, and probably many people, faith is just that warm fuzzy feeling we get when we see pictures of temples, churches, mosques, synagogues and what not. Anything beyond that feeling is not applicable to our reasoning mechanisms, except for when people attempt to apply faith to it, which is exactly what you are doing. And that is the problem I have with your claims. You try to shoe horn in a concept into where it was never possible. Most theologists of the religions today agree that faith has nothing to do with scientific induction/empiricism. From the Dahlai Llama[sp?] to the egg heads among the clergy for the Catholic Church all agree faith and science have nothing to bridge between the two. But what both agree on is that both science and faith are human doings, and take that human quality [whatever that may be...] for them to be possible. And that's why you will never see me agree with you in this case. If that is 'bad faith' then you can just keep acting like a fundie all you want, because at the end of the day, whatever you say is meaningless to my research and to my own experiences [which are numerous even for my paltry age of 26...].

I also would point out that you should not say any rational person would agree with you because, again, that is mind reading. You don't know what the other participents are thinking or feeling. Whether someone agrees with me or not is not the issue, it's whether your argument is valid, and more importantly, sound. Since it does not satisfy the most basic forms of validity or soundness, I have no other course but to reject your claim resoundingly.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/18, 8:21pm)

Post 34

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:17pm

So faith is like some magical place where fairies and such live right?

Nope, I said nothing like that at all.

What you can't seem to grasp is that faith is not something magical, nor vast in conception, it is simply hoping for things which are unseen/unperceived.

I never said anythng about something magical.

it's whether your argument is valid

Please define validity for me, not because I don't know what it means; I want to see if such a great scientist as you knows what it means. Don't look it up on the internet.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 35

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:21am

Validity is that which follows from a proper form of an argument, in particular a proposition in logic.

P -> Q
P
:. Q

This is valid because the antecedent leads to the consequent.

P -> Q
Q
:. P

This is invalid because the logical flow from antecedent to consequent is not inherentally bidirectional in an If-Then statement. This excludes biconditionals such as If and only If propositions, where both antecedent and consequent must be true for the proposition to be true as well.

In this regard, validity is the form, whereas soundness is the facts that backup the argument/proposition. But soundness also requires validity to be satisfied, so it can be seen that validity is the sub-structure to which soundness then is given a means to examine a given fact or set of acts...

Oh, btw, that isn't from a textbook, Nicky and never said I was a scientist. I said I was a student of science being that my degree major is in Computer Science. So, please, stop lying about my expertise, k?

-- Bridget

P.S. Nicky, are you scared that folks that also read philosophy article archives on the Internet may 1-up you too, which is why you did the little childish dig about not looking it up on the Internet? Dude, seriously, I took an Intro to Logic course like last semester. I got an A+ in it. So, don't bs me about what I know, k?
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/19, 12:23am)

Post 36

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:26am

So, lets get this train back on track.

1) How do you define faith? Please, give me an exact definition by which we can debate about.

2) In what context do you use that given definition for faith?

3) How do you handle inductive statements that are not prefaced on your definition of faith? Are they inductive statements at all?

4) How does faith aide inductive statements? Doesn't probability do enough?

-- Bridget

Post 37

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:22am

Your description of valdity is correct so far. It is applied to deductive arguments, not inductive arguments. We usually speak of soundness when refering to inductive arguments. And, inductive arguments are usually inconclusive. We make a leap of faith from the evidence of specifics to a general conclusion. (BTW, I notice that you are usually wrong when you make leaps about me.)

You should notice, too, that validity in deductive arguments does not mean hat the conclusion is true. The conclusion could be true even if the argument is invald, and it could be false even if the argument is valid. What validity means is that the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. All bets are off if one of the premises is false or if there is a fallacy in the argument.

People do sometimes get this wrong. I have debated with those who tell me how invalid my arguments are but then they can't define validity. I just wanted to make sure you were not one of them.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 38

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:37am

There is no leap of faith in induction. I asked you to define faith. You have not define it. Therefore, it follows that your definition, whatever it may be, is improper and incompatible with induction.

Assumptions are not faith. Nor are beliefs automatically following from faith. One can believe and have no faith. And one can have faith, but no beliefs. Therefore, your context fails again.

I say again:

1) Define Faith, exactly and completely.

2) Explain how your definition of faith operates on inductive arguments.

3) If an inductive argument does not follow from faith as you have defined it, then is it an inductive argument?

Do not evade these inquiries. They are pertanent to the larger debate. If you do not define your terms, then no one can understand where you are going. Now, please follow a standard form of argumentation that which everyone knows what you are thinking, getting at, and so forth, not this Cheshire cat crap.

If you do not meet the standard meter of argumentation as I presented, then I still continue to repost the same exact questions until you either stop posting or you actually fulfill my request. So, for the sake of simplicity answer my questions as they stand in their context. Or expect an automatic scripted response from now on.

-- Bridget, who tires of generalizations and evasions.
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/19, 7:39am)

Post 39

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:19am