If I say, “I believe I turned off the oven,” I’m not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I’m saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
Right, it’s subjective and based on your own experience without concrete evidence. That’s what I’m saying. Science is objective and must rely on evidence.
I’m not insisting that belief necessarily means anything faith-based. It could, but that’s not what we’re focusing on here. Only that it has a different meaning than accept as far as science is concerned.
My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, “Senses are inherently subjective,” fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You’re trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don’t understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You’re going full Dunning-Kruger here.
Yes, senses are inherently subjective. Yes, reading a scale with your eyes can throw off the result. There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it. You aren’t checking that it’s off. You’re saying that to the best of my memory, I turned it off. “I’m pretty sure.” That is subjective.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it.
You’re also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.
There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this “accepted protocol” mean that you don’t have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.
This is essentially just, “When someone wears a lab coat, that means it’s objective.” Even within “accepted protocols” there is still plenty of room for human error.
You are completely wrong about basically everything you’ve said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.
OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.
Right, it’s subjective and based on your own experience without concrete evidence. That’s what I’m saying. Science is objective and must rely on evidence.
I’m not insisting that belief necessarily means anything faith-based. It could, but that’s not what we’re focusing on here. Only that it has a different meaning than accept as far as science is concerned.
That’s incredibly dumb.
My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, “Senses are inherently subjective,” fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You’re trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don’t understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You’re going full Dunning-Kruger here.
Yes, senses are inherently subjective. Yes, reading a scale with your eyes can throw off the result. There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it. You aren’t checking that it’s off. You’re saying that to the best of my memory, I turned it off. “I’m pretty sure.” That is subjective.
You’re also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.
Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this “accepted protocol” mean that you don’t have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.
This is essentially just, “When someone wears a lab coat, that means it’s objective.” Even within “accepted protocols” there is still plenty of room for human error.
You are completely wrong about basically everything you’ve said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.
Yes, many things are subjective and that’s why measures are taken (protocols exist in other words) to remove inconsistencies.
You can make ad hominem attacks, but it’s just laughable since you have no basis for any of it…
OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.
No
Alright, you know, if you won’t use reason, then whatever your faith tells you I guess.