Actually, real science will come up with a model that both explains the physical evidence to date and also provides a means of predicting future events. If these predictions turn out to be accurate, then the model is useful. If the predictions are not accurate then the model is modified or discarded. It is this continual critical assessment that flies in the face of belief. I don't think that most scientists actually believe the model is reality--it just represents the best humans can do to understand the reality at a given point in time.

quote:

Yes, but... ever notice how science develops in the same way? We gather physical evidence. We hypothesize as to why things should be that way. We predict, test, confirm.

I can't agree that this is the same process at all. Science starts from the position of not knowing and, as you say, gathers evidence and then eventually, when enough evidence has been gathered, posits a hypothesis from which to work. If any fact is discovered that disproves the hypothesis then the hypothesis will not develop unless and until the balance of evidence again supports it.

Religions start from belief and then try to gather evidence to support it. Any evidence that disproves the belief is rejected, ignored or overruled.

This website http://www.answersingenesis.org/ purports to be a serious study and contains many clever arguments against the theory of evolution. However, it rules itself out completely as a reliable item by making this statement, "No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record".

In other words, the writers of this site believe that the scriptures are 100% accurate (and remember, there is little or no real proof for the accuracy of the scriptures) and thus anything that conflicts with the teachings of the scriptures must be wrong. So all their debate is coloured by that belief - regardless of whether or not the belief is true.

This is the direct opposite of the scientific method which assumes nothing is true without some evidence.

I don't think that most scientists actually believe the model is reality--it just represents the best humans can do to understand the reality at a given point in time.

That's why I thought the use of the verb create in this thread's opening proposition was ill-chosen. Besides that, for some, reality is simply the collection of physical objects which make up the universe. Others conflate this meaning with a person's (or more realistically their) phenomenal world (reality plus subjective perceptions and interpretations) or more likely a person's Weltanschauung (or worldview). The thing to do before a discussion can actually take place is to expand the proposition words create reality into a set of propositions, beliefs, context, etc.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that a person's perceptions are influenced (weak version) or shaped (strong one) by the structure of that person's language.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (link) Philip K Dick.

"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." Anon.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
...for some, reality is simply the collection of physical objects which make up the universe. Others conflate this meaning with a person's (or more realistically their) phenomenal world (reality plus subjective perceptions and interpretations)...

I guess my problem there is that I don't see how you can have one without the other. It's the old tree falling in the forest thing...

quote:

Originally posted by myth jellies:
...I don't think that most scientists actually believe the model is reality--it just represents the best humans can do to understand the reality at a given point in time...

But doesn't "reality"-- a function of human perception (which perhaps varies based on spoken language)-- continually evolve? If so, that's a pretty good description of it.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
But doesn't "reality"-- a function of human perception (which perhaps varies based on spoken language)-- continually evolve? If so, that's a pretty good description of it.

I would actually flip that around. I would say that the perceptions and feelings of other people exist (whether anyone else believes in them or not) and so they should be considered a part of "reality". It is obvious that that part of reality can be changed quite profoundly by words; therefore I am mostly in agreement with the title premise of this thread.

That being said, I think hard science tries to divorce itself from the vagaries of human feelings and perception, and develop models that successfully explain and predict for all people and things at all times. Thus, the law of gravity will have the same effect on you no matter how the part of reality that represents your perceptions evolves.

Z said:

quote:

That's why I thought the use of the verb create in this thread's opening proposition was ill-chosen.

and Richard said:

quote:

If the new reality isn't really reality, then it's belief, not reality.

I am positive that most people, outside of Wordcrafters of course, would know exactly what this thread was about, and we could go on from there. On Wordcraft, I've noticed, instead of discussing the subject at hand, we often veer off into some other subject. Here, for example, we're discussing that my use of reality isn't really reality or that the thread was poorly worded.

This concept of analyzing the questions asked, from the verbiage to the philosophical context, rather than to discuss the question at hand, must be called something. One surely sees it in politics. For the moment, it reminds me of prescriptivism, but I realize that's not it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

This concept of analyzing the questions asked, from the verbiage to the philosophical context, rather than to discuss the question at hand, must be called something.

Nit-picking? Actually (or really) I'm enjoying how it's evolved!

quote:

I'm enjoying how it's evolved!

Website Darwinism?

Richard, I really believe you are really really right.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Jerry.