I completely disagree. You can't believe everything that science has to say either I'm just thinking that if there is a God, and I do believe, but know that many don't...but if there is... then belief has everything to do with science...

You would consider that a being already knows everything... So you can't really make a statement that isn't known... Therefore everything else is false... Things are as they are, right down to the molecular level... and anything outside that is a lie.

yeah for me "god" means everything that exists both known and unknown, particularly the currently unknowable, the mystery behind all things. tat tvam asi.

Scientific knowledge rests in a framework of axiomatic beliefs. The basic axioms of science are existential statements about being in the world. For example, scientists believe that the universe exists, and that rigorous observation that provides consistent, coherent and predictive explanations of reality is trustworthy.

So,
It is first belief that sets the stage for the development of hypothesis that are testable and open to falsification.
What does science base belief on and how is it justified prior to the examination of the natural world?

No beliefs should ever be insulated from the possibility of revision. Agree or disagree?

Conversely, most any belief can be maintained no matter what observation demonstrates, as long as science modifies enough aspects of a particular theory. Commitment to the truth of any statement can be maintained. Correct?

How do the limits of observation effect predictions? And what impact do those limits have on our understanding of reality?

Interbane wrote:

I know about inference to the best yada, yada, yada.., BUT, in this instance, our inductive conclusion is based on what about copper everywhere in existence? Based on conclusive evidence or belief that our theory about copper holds true everywhere regardless of its untestability?

Uniformity of nature is based on induction. It's an axiom that if we decide to do without, we're only left with nihilism.

Our scientific conclusions about laws/regularities of nature are inductive and can never be deductive.

If our inductive conclusions always outrun our observational evidence, the guarantee that we will never obtain deductive proof cancels our goal of complete understanding about the nature of reality. Hence, we are highly limited in our understanding of the natural world (what is possible? what is impossible?)
Agree or disagree?

"Belief" should be replaced by a more specific term like "theistic belief" as every opinion held in one's mind is held there by "belief", i.e. no one runs around testing common assumptions because we trust someone somewhere has double-checked the facts. It is our "belief" this has been done since we don't do the leg work ourselves. This seems to be a very hard concept for atheists to accept because it damages their attack on theism by showing the truth that even science facts are held in our minds as beliefs they are true.

The ancient Greeks were smarter than moderns in using two words to identify "knowledge'. One was "science" which dealt with the study of the way the material world works, and the other was "gnosis", "knowledge of God", and was the organization of spiritual knowledge brought through direct spiritual experience, the "knowing" that comes as epiphanies of enlightenment about spiritual matters. In a very real way this division marks the way our brains process information with the left brain being analogous to the way "science" organizes information and the right brain being analogous to the way "gnosis" organizes information. As one experienced in both ways of viewing reality I would urge anyone who cares about critical thinking to see that strictly "science" information processing doesn't do it, doesn't accurately map reality or give appropriated responses to it because of leaving out the whole spiritual dimension, the one the Greeks knew existed and influenced human thought and behavior that they divided the terms for knowledge to reflect the two methods of attaining it.

I've decided that I am going to have to establish a new standard of knowledge authority: Biomystical Authority which I claim is superior to all other methods of describing the workings of the universe and our place in it because of being holistic bicameral consciousness. The biological part mirrors the physical aspects of material reality. The mystical part mirrors the spiritual transmission of information meant to guide humanity's evolution in consciousness to the aim of becoming one with God, one and the same. In Biomystical consciousness humanity at the "End of Days" has evolved in material powers to the point of being able to create matter out of pure thought, i.e. the basic power of God and it is this, our future form that has created itself through Creation, i.e. through the whole universe's Big Bang beginning to Black Hole annihilation. Within Creation's evolving historical time-line for human beings are embedded what we know and call "spiritual" events that act as triggers for unlocking further knowledge that helps humanity further evolve towards higher consciousness. People who are receptive to spiritual embedding are called "prophets" in the Jewish tradition. I am one of these people and my posted beliefs reflect both my science training as a physical anthropology major at one time and my spiritual revelations, so many now they comprise a good book's worth and could easily form the basis of a new religion or two..if God had directed me to do so which thank your lucky stars God didn't do. I mean look what happens when people don't take my delusions of grandeur seriously now. Imagine thousands of Sonomanites running loose in the world. Not a pretty picture.

But still I am and do claim point for establishing a new form of ultimate authority: Biomystical Authority. Maybe I'll put BMA initials after my name, be all collegie and everything, if I cared enough to impress others with silly scholars way of designating authoritative rankings. But I'll let my posted knowledge speak for itself. Belief may not belong in science but it most certainly does in gnosis. Belief is hope actually that whatever one thinks is true is really true. And for complex phenomena we really should avoid jumping to conclusions at our early childhood stage of science knowledge. Even gnosis has changed greatly now with the recovery of ancient astro-theological conception.

ant wrote:

Scientific knowledge rests in a framework of axiomatic beliefs. The basic axioms of science are existential statements about being in the world. For example, scientists believe that the universe exists, and that rigorous observation that provides consistent, coherent and predictive explanations of reality is trustworthy.

So, It is first belief that sets the stage for the development of hypothesis that are testable and open to falsification. What does science base belief on and how is it justified prior to the examination of the natural world?

Thanks Ant, these are reasonable questions. Science bases its beliefs in the existence and uniformity of the universe on induction. We observe that things exist and follow consistent laws, and we have never seen anything that plausibly contradicts these observations, so science operates on the assumption that these observations are universal. Induction does not come ‘prior to the examination of the natural world’ but in response to it. If you don’t look you won’t know.

ant wrote: No beliefs should ever be insulated from the possibility of revision. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. True beliefs should be completely insulated, and probable beliefs should be partly insulated. Analytic statements are true by definition. 1+1=2. New York is a city. If you don’t believe things like that you paralyse your potential to act. Synthetic statements are necessarily true by induction. Time and space are the context of sensation.

A probable belief is where a person has faith in their own judgment. People need to go with their hunches in order to make any decisions. That means we insulate things we think are probably true, such as expected investment outcomes, even though we are sometimes wrong.

ant wrote: Conversely, most any belief can be maintained no matter what observation demonstrates, as long as science modifies enough aspects of a particular theory. Commitment to the truth of any statement can be maintained. Correct?

Ridiculous. No belief that contradicts abundant observation can be maintained by a reasonable person. Distorting scientific knowledge is unethical. Intelligent Design is a good example of such an unethical method that ignores evidence about evolution in order to promote Biblical creationism.

ant wrote:
How do the limits of observation effect predictions? And what impact do those limits have on our understanding of reality?

Did you mean ‘affect’? This is actually a really fascinating question and I have just read a book about it, called Astrology A Place in Chaos. It raises just this problem of what the limits of observation actually are. Basically, as our observations become less certain, so do our predictions. Uncertainty has a big impact on understanding of reality, because there are questions such as the extent of order within chaos on which we have only sketchy knowledge.

ant wrote:Our scientific conclusions about laws/regularities of nature are inductive and can never be deductive.

If our inductive conclusions always outrun our observational evidence, the guarantee that we will never obtain deductive proof cancels our goal of complete understanding about the nature of reality. Hence, we are highly limited in our understanding of the natural world (what is possible? what is impossible?)
Agree or disagree?

On first read through I agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate.

Our understanding of the natural world could at some point be perfect, absolutely complete. But we wouldn't know it. There would be no way for us to verify that our knowledge was complete without traveling to the ends of the universe, and living until the end of time. So our understanding may at some point be complete, but our confidence in it's completeness will never be absolute.

So, It is first belief that sets the stage for the development of hypothesis that are testable and open to falsification.

Robert answered this adeptly. I'll add that our required trust in induction is applicable to every organism with a brain, and every mode of discovering new knowledge. It is fundamental to all experience, not merely science. Without it, we would slide down the slippery slope into nihilism.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:Our scientific conclusions about laws/regularities of nature are inductive and can never be deductive.

If our inductive conclusions always outrun our observational evidence, the guarantee that we will never obtain deductive proof cancels our goal of complete understanding about the nature of reality. Hence, we are highly limited in our understanding of the natural world (what is possible? what is impossible?)
Agree or disagree?

On first read through I agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate.

Our understanding of the natural world could at some point be perfect, absolutely complete. But we wouldn't know it. There would be no way for us to verify that our knowledge was complete without traveling to the ends of the universe, and living until the end of time. So our understanding may at some point be complete, but our confidence in it's completeness will never be absolute.

So, It is first belief that sets the stage for the development of hypothesis that are testable and open to falsification.

Robert answered this adeptly. I'll add that our required trust in induction is applicable to every organism with a brain, and every mode of discovering new knowledge. It is fundamental to all experience, not merely science. Without it, we would slide down the slippery slope into nihilism.

Pure hypocrisy, Interbane. You don't follow your philosophy at all because if you did you wouldn't attack theists with such intellectual dishonesty saying their knowledge acquisition is somehow invalid even though admitting knowledge is not merely science derived. I'm starting another thread on this subject.

sonoman wrote: if you did you wouldn't attack theists with such intellectual dishonesty

instead of thinking of it as an attack, why not think of it as a challenge.

your wonderful prophety self can withstand a challenge cant it?

Interbane is a pretty clever old fox, and a damned nice fellow. it is an honour to have such a dedicated thinker as an opponent. why not simply directly and calmly call on your awesomeness and do what Inter does, calmly point out why you disagree or differ with point or points raised.

why not love your enemies (opponents at thought) by turning the other cheek and calmly leading them to reason, assuming you have some, which you obviously do.

Doubt is not an attack, Sonoman.

People who disagree with you are not your enemies.

People who don't see things the way you do are not evil.