[jimster]

Epistemology is a rabbit hole, but ... I think it is useful to observe there is a way to categorize what people regard as truth.

1. Things the vast majority accept as true, roughly speaking - F=MA, Putin rules Russia, water boils at 212 degrees fahrenheit at sea level, Lindbergh was first to fly the Atlantic, US Declaration of Independence in 1776, Trump was the 45th president, the earth is round (oblate spheroid). These things have many consistent connections to each other, are documented in multiple original sources, and are relied on in daily life. Physics, chemistry, biology, history. These are sometimes controversial in small part, but physicists agree on a huge amount of physics (tested by use in gadgets) even if they don't agree on string theory or quantum.

2.  Things that only a few have figured out the truth of and are contrary to the general beliefs held above. These include black helicopters, 5g mind control, microchips in vaccine, Q, reptile overlords, chemtrails, etc, and of course flat earth. All these require some combination of conspiracy, ignoring of some evidence, violations of the laws of physics, impossible technology, acceptance of inconsistency with known fact, and creation of whole new phenomena whose only proof of existence is that it is necessary to support a conclusion that has already been made.

Example: Bob Knodel and his ring laser gyroscope sees 15 degree/hr precession, concludes there must be an unknown force they can't identify or measure.

The conspiracy has to be global, multi-generational, immensely powerful, yet secret, meaning so small and inexpensive that it can be hidden. The details are never available, it is always vague.

Example: A tiny number of people at NASA convince the majority that the earth is round and make their space shots seem real. The question "Who at NASA and SpaceX knows the truth and who is a dumb sheep?" can never be answered, just a continuing insistence that NASA can and does control everything from "stick pushers" to the "ice wall patrol". Simultaneously huge, powerful, complete, and yet tiny and invisible.

I claim category 1 is science, and category 2 is faith. In science, you look at all the facts and conclude, even if you don't like the results. In faith, you decide what you want the results to be and change or disregard any conflicting observations. If you look into any faith based belief, it requires conspiracy and disregarding facts and logic.

You can use category 1 to do useful things, like navigation. Category 2 does not produce useful gadgets. There are many category 1 navigation devices (astral, inertial, gyrocompass, time/speed/distance, odometer, geodetic markers), no FE map, sextant, star chart, nothing.

Whatever woeds you want to put to it, however you want to argue, I think FE is category 2, and category 2 is an excellent bet to be bs.

I don't like it that the earth is round, I would prefer we could measure distances in a flat plane, the notion of the water being held in quite opposite directions on opposite sides of the earth is difficult to accept or feel comfortable with. But the earth is round.

[Clyde Frog]

This is a really low-effort false dichotomy. It places things like new discoveries firmly in camp #2, and turns all those people that worked on helping show the Higgs Boson is more than a theoretical construct into faith-serving conspiracy theorists. At least, until their discovery is properly communicated to the masses, and subsequently hopefully accepted. And the problem is even bigger for major framework breakthroughs, like GR or QM, where the span of time from concept to model to tested model to model-widely-accepted-as-more-precise-than-the-orthodox-model is usually pretty drawn out. And further, it also would place religion in camp #1 in a large portion of the world. And despite you trying to hedge your statement at the very end of point 1, it really doesn't prevent this problem from materializing with your categories. All areas of discovery and advancement are recategorized as "faith" by your hot take here.

Your categories are more correctly labeled "Things that are determined by observation" and "Things that are not determined by observation." And I don't think it's useful at all in the way you described.

[jimster]

Okay, new categories:

1. Same as before, accepted conventional facts.

2. Paradigm breaking new science. Higgs Bosun etc are not discovered by people outside the science community who rejected much of it (FE has to change multiple laws of physics and/or conventional facts like gravity or distance between places). They are scientists working at the edge of what is known and what is useful in daily life. They do not reject everything from gravity to astronomy as FE must.  This mostly involves things that are smaller than microscopic or larger than a planet, or moving near the speed of light. None of it changes the science of planets orbiting the sun, chemistry, gravity, etc. or the facts underlying our use of tech in daily life.

Paradigm breaking occurred frequently after the enlightenment, not so much now. This is natural, think about it.

The pioneers of flight studied the forces generated by airflow over a wing. Since then, quantum, string, higgs bosun, any paradigm breaking science you can name, but the equations of forces on a wing are still used and nothing new has changed them in any amount that matters.

3. Crackpot theories that are inconsistent with known facts, chemtrails, FE, microchips in vaccine, etc.

I never said there was no problem with my idea, I said it was a useful way to look at it. ALl complex systems have inconsistencies, Godel proved this in math and I think it is true in general.

I put religion squarely in category 2, if I forgot to mention it, group confirmation is part of #1, and religion can never be in category 1 because it is inherently private. Any publicly confirmable religious belief is not religion, it is category 1. Reporting something that violates the laws of physics is mental illness if done by an individual. When done by a group with dogma and ceremony, it is religion. It is not a coincidence that there are many FEs claiming the Bible says FE, and so the earth must be flat so the Bible won't be wrong.

FE started thousands of years ago, Rowbotham over a hundred years ago. Where is the FE map with constant scale, correct size, distance, and direction? Science took a long time to advance before printing press, phone, tv, internet. If the earth is flat, there should be huge errors all over the place, easy to point out.

What's the problem?

Possibility #1, global multi-generational conspiracy with secret devices in gps, airplanes, nasa ice wall patrol, lamp shade sun on a swing arm, unknown forces bending light, etc etc etc.

Possibility #2 The earth is round, ships and airplanes successfully navigate, eclipses predicted, tides explained, etc etc etc etc and no global multi-generational conspiracy to fool everyone.

If the earth is flat, with the tech available today, it should be easy to prove. Why doesn't everyone believe the earth is flat? I am perfectly willing to believe the earth is flat, I would emotionally prefer it. I have read hundreds of FE posts and watched many FE videos. RE has the stronger case.

Example: RE has enabled navigation for hundreds of years, every plane I have flown has arrived exactly where they intended. FE can't make a map. Every map in the FAQ shows Australia as considerably wider than USA. GPS, odometer/time/speed distance, airline schedules, google maps, US geodetic survey, etc etc etc show USA as wider than Australia. Measure on a globe, and everything matches up.

Per you, should be easy to explain, but you are stuck with "conspiracy" and "we haven't figured it out yet."

[Clyde Frog]

It doesn't matter that you wrote that religion belongs in category 2. Look at how you wrote it. Your revised category 1 still has the same problem. Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them. We're talking thousands of years. That's the flaw you have in trying to frame things in the way you are going about it. Religion, as it has been practiced historically throughout the history of humanity, is not an entirely personal thing. It's a group experience. People gather together, read texts from the same book, listen to someone tell them whatever lesson that book is supposed to teach them during this particular gathering, participate in rituals together, and they do so "knowing" that the facts they are learning about their god and their religion are true. These are deeply held beliefs, considered to be truths in most cases, and have been around longer than modern science by millennia. That's category 1 based on how you are laying things out.

FE started thousands of years ago, Rowbotham over a hundred years ago. Where is the FE map with constant scale, correct size, distance, and direction? Science took a long time to advance before printing press, phone, tv, internet. If the earth is flat, there should be huge errors all over the place, easy to point out.

This doesn't exactly seem relevant to the topic at hand, and seems more like moving the goalposts to a more comfortable place to continue talking down about something you don't agree with. Your topic is about categorizing "truth" and now you want to get into the weeds about FE and maps?

Per you, should be easy to explain, but you are stuck with "conspiracy" and "we haven't figured it out yet."

Per me? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What did I say that makes you respond with something indicating that I implied anything like you are asserting? Genuine ask here. Please point me to the post.

[jimster]

Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?
 

[Clyde Frog]

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ok, well now all you've done is describe the difference between science and faith, but with lots and lots of words to obfuscate, and with significant muddying of otherwise relatively clear waters. That's nothing new, and it's a DRAMATIC deviation from the first "there's science, and then there's 5G conspiracy" kind of position you started with.

Moving on though. What exactly is this deep and profound realization supposed to help illuminate? What is the point of this exercise to categorize things taken on evidence versus those taken on faith? Help me understand what inspired you to use so many words to say this.

[jimster]

Exactly. I called it category 1 and category 2 because I knew that FEs and religionists would object to having their faith put in a different category than truth. We need a different word for faith based conclusions vs science based conclusions. We use the word true for both, which puts each person's religion in the same category as F=MA. I tried to describe the difference without causing immediate rejection caused by defense of faith knowledge to make it so that "true" was the same for F=MA as a religious belief.

Hindus have gathered to worship Shiva and Vishnu for thousands of years, they have sacred texts, they have faith. They will tell you they get comfort, inspiration, and help in their daily lives. Their prayers are answered (when it fits in with their deities plans). Same story as Christians, but no way to know which is true, and they contradict each other.

Is their religion true? Is their some way to know? How would you answer that question with faith?  Seems to me the answer doesn't reflect what is true, it reflects what your parents told you when you were young. Statistically, most people will say the religion of their culture is true. What faith tells us in this case is where you were born.

When Galileo looked through his telescope and realized the sun was the center of the solar system, the church had a different faith. At that moment, faith = religion = FE. Category 2. The earth is round and orbits the sun. Category 1. Which is right?

[Clyde Frog]

Ok, so to be clear, you are doubling down on your totally awesome realization that there is a difference between faith and science as if it's something new and interesting? I guess proceed? It's still a far cry from the thing you started saying in your OP. And to boot, you're now equating all faith with FE. With an actual equals sign. And you're also playing arbiter of what "real" truth is now, which is a whole can of worms that doesn't seem like it's something anyone would want to open when they could simply repeat the same thing people have been saying since the scientific method became a thing, which is that there are things you are test in order to support or disprove, and things that just simply aren't testable that you have to either accept or reject on faith. But this is not some new thing that you have stumbled upon. Don't get me wrong - I'm glad you had this personal a-ha moment, it's an important thing everyone should experience. But it's not new. And you also are calling all faith-based positions BS, per your own OP, which is pretty arrogant.

[jimster]

It is new and interesting apparently, as people give faith the same credibility of the word true as science. Saying "I know" or "It is true" about a religious fact is a different meaning than with a science (or just general observable knowledge). Using the word "true" for both religion and science gives religion the impression of testability and reliability and predictability, indeed knowability, that it should not be given. It is not testable or reliable.

What I meant to say in the original post is that there are two ways of deciding "truth", one is shareable and reliable and culture independent. Statistically, no religion has more than half the population of the world, so everyone has a priori odds of less than 50%. Aside from edge science (quantum, string, etc), stuff like F=MA, molecules, etc., the community is 100% agreed and all is tested daily, never fails. Water boils at 212 F at sea level. Things fall at 32 ft/sec/see.

i was not claiming the word truth, as I have learned in the FE world is that "truth" (epistemology) is endlessly arguable. What I am claiming is that we can categorize claims and describe the characteristics of those categories, hence category 1 and 2 rather than "true" and "false".

What I am saying is that FE and religion both rely on a subset of all people giving psychological validity to a set of beliefs not held by people not in that group and which conflicts with the general consensus. Neither FE nor religion produces reliable predictions and both require what is called "apologetics" in religion, explaining seeming logical contradictions to maintain faith.

Because they are not testable in a shareable way, both diverge, meaning new grioups and beliefs being formed. Science converges, starting from unknown to confused and controversial and ending at consensus. Consider astronomy or biology or chemistry.

My claim is that you can draw parallels with the FE community and thinking process to religious community and thinking process easily. Drawing parallels to science is, as you point out, not easy. My conclusion is that religion is more like FE than it is like science.


Math is starting with a set of assumptions and making a useful logical system.

Science is the process of looking at the world around us and trying to explain how it works as a logically consistent system.

FE is applying the faith process to astronomy.

Religion is applying the faith process to whatever/everything.

BTW, many are here because they think the Bible says the earth is flat. Literally FE = religion. Doesn't say much for the clarity of the writing or the reading comprehension of FE, or the scientific accuracy of the Bible,

All in all FE+Bible is right down the strike zone of faith based, and faith based has a lousy record of being right. Science is not perfect, but those eclipses happen just as predicted, and a huge number of other things.

PS I am grateful to science textbook authors for trying to be clear, accurate, and unambiguous. The writers of religious texts never seem to be able or willing to do that. Differences in interpretation cause religions to break apart. If I were God, it would be clear and unambiguous to everyone. Boring, yes, but I am too soft hearted to be a desert God.

[Roundy]

So people who accept faith consider it as truthful as people who accept science. I agree, earth-shattering.

If you want to discuss how this relates to FE that's fine, but you really posted in the wrong forum for that. This subforum is more for philosophical and societal issues independent of FET (and you must recognize that most discussions of FET are inherently philosophical, which is the reason for the distinction).

I can say you're making an unfounded assumption when you state that FE belief is faith-based. It is very strongly based on empirical evidence.

RET actually requires a modicum of faith (I would say more than FET), because odds are long that you've even had the opportunity to observe the supposed sphericity of the Earth and are basing your opinion partly on how you interpret certain kinds of indirect evidence, coupled with the fact that RE belief is a thing that's been indoctrinated in most of us since infancy (much like religion).

[Action80]

Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?

If you expect me to agree that water boils at 210, I am sorry.

I refuse.

[Roundy]

Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?

If you expect me to agree that water boils at 210, I am sorry.

I refuse.

But if the water is at 210 Celsius, it will be boiling... he didn't specify the scale.

Which just goes to show, even "uncontroversial" truths have their layers. Nothing is absolute.

[jimster]

210 = picking nits. You understand that the behavior of water at different temperatures is agreed and observed to be true by people all over the world. Washington DC is the capital of US. The heart pumps blood to the lungs where it gets oxygen and then through the body to be turned to motion by chemical reactions in muscles. You can pick nits with any example I give, but it is still true that there is a network of knowledge that is shared through the entire world agreed and confirmed millions of times daily and consistent with itself. 

Things that are not in this category: astrology, religion, flat earth, Q, palmistry.

As to correct forum to post in, I posted here because I am not debating or investigating FE. I am observing that there are two ways of "knowing". Without going down the epistemology rabbit hole, I claim this categorization is pragmatically useful. I tend to accept and depend on universal common knowledge. Things "known" by only one subgroup, things that are not testable, measureable, and repeatable, are not reliable.

Because category 2 isn't testable, category 2 groups diverge. Category 1 converges. In the year 1000, there were many ideas about how the stars and planets were organized. In 2021, pretty much the exact same story from everyone, and further to my point, FE has many factions, and new ones appear. RE maps varied in 1600, they are all the same now. FE maps in FAQ?

When category 2 is confronted with invalidation, it ignores the possibility it is wrong and immediately seeks to explain. In Christianity, this is called apologetics. Bob Knodel in netflix doc when he sees 15 degrees on his ring laser gyroscope (and again after he put it in a faraday cage later), never consider that the simplest explanation is RE.

People do not make the distinction between category 1 and category 2, they want their category 2 belief to be considered the same as category 1. Category 2 can be whatever your group believes it is, there is no way to invalidate. FE may be harmless as professionals doing actual things are RE, but the habit of thinking faith is truth rather than imagination, hope, preference, made real by group agreement rather than universal testable consistent repeatable observations often leads to mistakes.