AIDS Cure Found?

In my view, belief in what has apparently been demonstrated by science requires as much faith as does religious belief that one might claim isn't "supported by science". Everything that science has gleaned is a product of sense-based observation (i.e. empirical), and the idea that these senses are infallible or even so much as exist requires faith. Who's to say that products of scientific reasoning have any more evidence behind them when that evidence is ultimately as steeped in faith as are products of religion? The only cases in which Religious beliefs are in any way inferior, in my view, are those which have inherent logical fallacies (for example, if god is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, why is there evil? And even problems like this have workarounds).

I am an atheist; I have faith.
id like to know what scientific evidence is based on faith
 

Lamppost

I put the milk in first
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
this would be great if it is true.
i just can't see them finding a legit cure to aids or things like it anytime soon.
but don't get me wrong i want a cure :P
 
I agree with Fizz, any sort of scientific discovery is simple based on observations. Science is inductive and, therefore, requires faith. For example, science has a solid understanding of gravity, its effects, and limitations. A scientist can hold up a pencil and say that it will fall to ground if let go. This is based on previous observations that the same pencil fell to the ground when released. Although previous observations have been made, there is no real foolproof reason to believe that this particular trial will go exactly the same way. You have never observed this pencil in this particular situation. It could, for arguments sake, instead float up the the ceiling. That is the inherit weakness of induction based reasoning, which science is.

In other words, any scientific discovery is based on observations. Induction, which is the inference of a generalized conclusion from several instances (in other words science) has some basis in faith.
 
I agree with Fizz, any sort of scientific discovery is simple based on observations. Science is inductive and, therefore, requires faith. For example, science has a solid understanding of gravity, its effects, and limitations. A scientist can hold up a pencil and say that it will fall to ground if let go. This is based on previous observations that the same pencil fell to the ground when released. Although previous observations have been made, there is no real foolproof reason to believe that this particular trial will go exactly the same way. You have never observed this pencil in this particular situation. It could, for arguments sake, instead float up the the ceiling. That is the inherit weakness of induction based reasoning, which science is.
if there was a million dollar bet on the pencil floating of falling float im pretty sure what everyone would say
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
That they didn't understand what you said?

That statement is completely irrelevant because even if every person said it would fall they would be making the decision based on the faith that gravity will act as science ha observed it to.
 
That doesn't mean anything. Induction, by its definition, never actually proves anything. And of course people will bet for the pencil falling, that is how strong their faith is in gravity working like it has been observed to. But they have never observed this particular instance, and therefore rely on faith to make their bet. Doesn't your browser have a spell checker....?
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
You can only reach that conclusion about "faith" with the most dramatic of oversimplifications of definition. The only "faith" required in science is the faith that no one lies about findings - and considering studies are repeated over and over again, even that is unnecessary.
 
I am not sure that I'd go so far as to say that nothing is fact; that is a pretty bold statement. What I would say though is that science is not in opposition to faith. Science is actually very well founded in faith. For example, take an atom and all its constituents. We have absolutely no idea how they look, what they are composed of, why they even exist, yet we have huge fields of study dedicated to them. Chemistry and all its branches rely on the observations that we have made of atoms and the way they react to each other. Physics, chemistry, and all branches of science for that matter, are based on things we have never even seen. Blind faith. Based on observations? Yes. But faith nonetheless.

Chris is me: Anything based in induction, by definition, is never actually proved. It only predicts what is most likely to happen. An act of faith.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
We have absolutely no idea how they look, what they are composed of, why they even exist, yet we have huge fields of study dedicated to them.
We know how they look. They're not visible to the naked eye. We have a model (the Electron Cloud model) for how they are structured that is scientifically consistent.

We know exactly what atoms are composed of. Protons, neutrons, and electrons; the precise number of each dictating what element they are and how they bond with other atoms.

"Why they exist"? They are literally everything. They can't not exist.

We have huge fields of study in them because they exist and can be researched. If we were just guessing, we couldn't find any facts based on them.

Physics, chemistry, and all branches of science for that matter, are based on things we have never even seen. Blind faith. Based on observations? Yes. But faith nonetheless.
The idea that you can't be truly sure of anything that isn't visible is incredibly naive. Are we not sure that the atmosphere is made of various gases? Are we uncertain of where the drains in our sinks and toilets go? We need "blind faith" to prove to ourselves that whatever is behind us still exists when our head is turned?

---

As for induction, they can generally be made slightly more specific in order to become provable. E.g. "All life depends on water" is induced, but "All life as we know it depends on water" is proven... Not having knowledge of everything doesn't make what we do know somehow untrue.
 
You can only reach that conclusion about "faith" with the most dramatic of oversimplifications of definition. The only "faith" required in science is the faith that no one lies about findings - and considering studies are repeated over and over again, even that is unnecessary.
What it sounds like you're saying is that all science is based on something ultimate foundation that is absolutely, unequivocally true, something that cannot even be questioned. Now, this is clearly false, and probably not what you meant. What you probably actually meant is that some things are too inherently obvious to be questioned. Which, come to think of it, is what many theists would likely say about God. But regardless, that's a pretty bold statement about the human mind. Your mind is fallible; that's rather undisputed. How do you know everything you've learned about gravity, for instance wasn't learned in, say, a dream?

Placing science above religious faith doesn't really make sense.

Again, this is from the standpoint of an atheist.

Edit:
The idea that you can't be truly sure of anything that isn't visible is incredibly naive.
Read some Descartes or something. Keeping in mind that Descartes in many ways allowed for much of modern science. Although you can't even be sure of things that are visible.

Edit: Also I realize that Descartes' meditations ultimately don't end in solipsism but maybe skip everything after the second one seeing as the existence of God is more or less assumed if I'm remembering correctly.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
What it sounds like you're saying is that all science is based on something ultimate foundation that is absolutely, unequivocally true, something that cannot even be questioned.
All of science does rely on the assumption that what we (as a species) observe is true. If that isn't the case, then there is no truth.

What you probably actually meant is that some things are too inherently obvious to be questioned.
Nope.
 
Both science and religion rely on the principle that there are things that cannot be accurately observed but nevertheless exist. Science in particular operates on the principle that nothing can be proven, but only disproven. Science basically assumes that our observations are probably inaccurate.
 
even if you call conclusions in science to be faith look at the importance of them. 'faith' in the laws of gravity have lead to things like planes and those weird string toys. faith in god has led to some very not recommend things.
edit: yeah just saw your last post and i agree. if something cant be disproven it means its possibly true
 
We know how they look. They're not visible to the naked eye. We have a model (the Electron Cloud model) for how they are structured that is scientifically consistent.

That is the whole problem I am trying to make you aware of. They are scientifically consistent with observations we have made, which means that they are based those observations and not the true nature of the atom itself. Even if you could see it, you are still seeing our perception of it, and not the actual nature of the atom itself.

We know exactly what atoms are composed of. Protons, neutrons, and electrons; the precise number of each dictating what element they are and how they bond with other atoms.

This is a very rudimentary understanding of atoms that is taught to us in elementary school. Atoms are indeed composed of subatomic particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those particles though are not the smallest subdivision of matter, there are smaller particles that compose those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle if you feel like enriching yourself further.

"Why they exist"? They are literally everything. They can't not exist.

Or they could not exist, and then there would just be nothing. No good reason for this not to be the case, unless of course you believe in a God that created everything.

We have huge fields of study in them because they exist and can be researched. If we were just guessing, we couldn't find any facts based on them.

Anything based on induction can very well be likely to happen, but can never be considered truly fact. Did those observations actually happen? Yes, they did happen. That is fact, but trying to project those observations to future events can never be fact.

The idea that you can't be truly sure of anything that isn't visible is incredibly naive. Are we not sure that the atmosphere is made of various gases? Are we uncertain of where the drains in our sinks and toilets go? We need "blind faith" to prove to ourselves that whatever is behind us still exists when our head is turned?

Naive? I think your understanding of even the simplest induction is far more naive. Those things that are, such as the composition of the atmosphere can in fact be checked. And whatever is found can be considered fact, but only for that instance. You can't say that the composition of the atmosphere will always be the same simply because you observed it to be so on several other occasions. Its actually laughable that you would use the drains in our sinks as an example. Once again, you may observed it several times, but that never guarantees that it will always work that way. It simply proves that it worked that way in those observations, and it implies heavily that it will happen again; never guarantees.

---

As for induction, they can generally be made slightly more specific in order to become provable. E.g. "All life depends on water" is induced, but "All life as we know it depends on water" is proven... Not having knowledge of everything doesn't make what we do know somehow untrue.

Do I need to repeat myself again? We are aware that every life form we have observed requires water. That is fact, but you cannot generalize all life forms based on these observations. Generalizing all life forms is induction, simply saying that all the life forms we have observed require water is not inductive reasoning, it is simply stating a fact.
On a personal note, I am a very faithful catholic. I am also a very avid lover of science and currently studying to receive my bachelors degree in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. I don't really know why people say that they are opposing views that can't exist together. Yeah, it is kind of tricky to try and incorporate both into a single way of viewing things. It would be blatant ignorance to ignore the existence of scientific discoveries, but in no way or form do I feel that science ever makes the existence of God any less likely.
 
All of science does rely on the assumption that what we (as a species) observe is true. If that isn't the case, then there is no truth.
Just to get back to my original point, note the use of the word "assumption". You're correct, science is making this assumption, and it's probably a good assumption to make, but nevertheless it is an assumption and as far as I'm concerned the distinction between assumption-based evidence and faith is rather meaningless.
 

FlareBlitz

Relaxed nature. Loves to eat.
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Just to get back to my original point, note the use of the word "assumption". You're correct, science is making this assumption, and it's probably a good assumption to make, but nevertheless it is an assumption and as far as I'm concerned the distinction between assumption-based evidence and faith is rather meaningless.
Okay.

You can either hire an engineer to design a bridge, who will measure and calculate and toil and apply the scientific method as best as he knows, or you can hire a priest, who has faith that God will guide him to do it correctly.

If the bridge collapses, thousands of people die.

You willing to put people's lives where your mouth is? If not, then there's a rather substantial distinction between the "assumption-based" scientific method and faith, isn't there?
 
All of science does rely on the assumption that what we (as a species) observe is true. If that isn't the case, then there is no truth.
Even if that assumption was incorrect, it would be a very bold statement to say that truth simply exists because human perception is true. There is an inherent nature to everything that humans perceive through our sensory organs. How correct is our perception, no way to know.

FlareBlitz: That is an exaggerated situation. He is saying, for example, that someone who is of a religious faith's belief in God can be as justified as the belief that a particular bridge designed by an engineer will stand. Both are acts of faith. He is simply trying to say that the distinction between them is not as cut and dry as people are putting it.
 
SEO's correct. As an atheist, I would be rather disinclined to allow the priest to design the bridge. I do not claim this view to be superior to the view that the priest should design the bridge. Just as a religious person would strive to do what is right in the eyes of God, I would likely fight to have the bridge designed by the engineer in accordance with my view. But ultimately I recognize that my view is steeped in faith.
 

FlareBlitz

Relaxed nature. Loves to eat.
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
FlareBlitz: That is an exaggerated situation. He is saying, for example, that someone who is of a religious faith's belief in God can be as justified as the belief that a particular bridge designed by an engineer will stand. Both are acts of faith. He is simply trying to say that the distinction between them is not as cut and dry as people are putting it.
You didn't answer the question. And it's not an exaggerated situation at all. It is, in fact, an allegory that is fundamental to the issue of stem cells (saving lives based on science versus losing them based on "faith").

Now, Fizz does answer the question. He says:
"As an atheist, I would be rather disinclined to allow the priest to design the bridge. I do not claim this view to be superior to the view that the priest should design the bridge. Just as a religious person would strive to do what is right in the eyes of God, I would likely fight to have the bridge designed by the engineer in accordance with my view. But ultimately I recognize that my view is steeped in faith."

This, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like saying "well I would fight to make sure that a coin lands heads, but I still think it's completely random". If you truly thought it was completely random, you wouldn't/shouldn't give a shit.

The entire problem with applying Hume's argument to anything beyond a pedantic freshman philosophy discussion on metacognition is that, ultimately, our entire way of life is predicated on the scientific method. Churches are still built by architects. Ultimately, it's definitely not an even split, and it's ultimately hypocritical to say "both random guessing and planned calculation are the same but I prefer planned calculation when it matters".
 
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't fundamentally believe the priest has a 50% chance of doing a better job. I fundamentally believe that the priest has no business trying and would probably kill a whole lot of people. I am an atheist. What I'm saying is that this view simply appeals to me more than the alternative and it's not necessarily more logical or even more useful. Our entire way of life is predicated on the scientific method because people in this society who believe in God also believe in science, at least to a certain extent. And if everyone believes in science, why shouldn't society be based on it?
 
What's being alluded to by Fizz and SEO is, I think, what they call the Problem of Induction.

Induction, generally, is a mechanism of proving that if 'p' is true in a particular case (denoted k=0, say), and if you can prove that 'p' is true for case k+1 if you assume it is true for the case k. With those two things together, you can prove 'p' is true for all cases k.

That is, if we show 'p if k' implies 'p if k+1', then substituting k=0 (where we know 'p' is true', we know that p is true for k=1. Then if k=1, we know it's true for k=2, and so on.


The problem arises when we apply that to scientific observations. We assume that an experiment done with certain variables set today gives the same result as an experiment done tomorrow with the same variables set identically. But how can we know this? The fact that all of our previous days k=0, k=1, k=2 etc. have had the sun rise in the east does not imply the same thing will happen tomorrow unless we make the assumption 'p if k implies p if k+1'.

I think the best response to this problem, personally, comes from the author of SMBC Comics. His premise is basically that you can criticise an experiment on two bases; observation and logic. In Science we assume these things because we have no alternative; if we assume logic is invalid, then the very method we use to prove this creates a problem is, itself, invalid. This means the only mechanism that allows for consistency is to make the assumption that it DOES work, because no alternative exists. The same mechanism can be applied to observation. Showing that observation doesn't relate to reality is, itself, an observation. That observation therefore does not relate to reality. Again you have an unending loop, so the only alternative is to assume that observation is validly representing truth.

So far, it's worked pretty well.
 
I guess my response to that is that I'm not questioning the logic (the method), only the premises upon which it is commonly used. And I'm not really questioning observation in general as you're using it (this applies to conclusions reached via thought), only empirical observation, to which the idea of questioning observation doesn't really apply.

I might just be misinterpreting you/the article though. It's very interesting.
 
This is not the cure for AIDS, this was just plain lucky. He had HIV and Lukeimia and they had to kill his whole immune system, but how exactly did the stem cells work. I dont understand this in depth medical stuff. There are alot of things that could have gone wrong, and even a tiny infection could have killed this guy. He should consider himself extremely lucky and HIV free. This is not something that just anybody w/ HIV can use by any means. This is progress though, i think they need to keep their eyes open to other possible cures though
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top