-
Definitions
- Jul 2, 2010 at 12:56 PM
- By
- Comments (6) Total Views (182) Everyone can see this journal post.
Premise :== a declarative statement, similar to the usage of "proposition" in logic. (source)
Deductive Reasoning :== A syllogism is valid if it is 100% impossible to get an incorrect conclusion using it, given correct premises. (source, examples)
Proof (mathematical) :== In mathematics, a proposition is said to be proven if and only if it can be derived from a set of agreed axioms (Peano's axioms, Axiom of choice) using deductive reasoning. (source)
Inductive Reasoning (mathematical) :== A particular type of proof used in mathematics that is 100% reliable. (source)
Inductive Reasoning (scientific) :== A statistical process that tell you how reliably you may draw a conclusion from a weight of evidence. (source)
Proof (legal) :== In criminal law, a proposition is said to be proven beyond reasonable doubt if the balance of evidence is such that a reasonable person would conclude that the proposition is at least 95% likely to be true. (source)
Signal (information theory) :== the raw feed from our senses or a communication channel. which may be split into data + noise (source)
Data (information theory) :== the encoded information extractable from the signal (source)
Information (information theory) :== the semantic meaning we decode from the data (source)
Measurement :== use of an instrument (with an explicit or implicit scale) to allocate a value or range of values to a quantity (source)
Observation :== the process of improving the reliability of an estimated value by repeating a measurement, possibly at a different time or place, possibly using a different instrument or observer. (source)
Subjective :== when the base value being estimated varies depending upon who the observer is. (source)
Objective :== when the base value being estimated is independent of the identity of the observer. (source)
Evidence (scientific) :== objective observations published in sufficient detail to allow a reader to verify the observation by replicating the experiment. (source)
Fact (scientific) :== scientific evidence that has been sufficiently verified to be considered reliable by the scientific consensus.
Hypothesis
(general)
:== a
statement linking cause to effect, aka "a guess" (source)
Hypothesis
(scientific) :== a hypothesis upon which one can make
testable
predictions or postdictions, aka "an educated guess" (source)
Model (scientific) :== a collection of scientific hypothesis that, within stated limitations or levels of accuracy, are consistent with all relevant scientific evidence, that together provide a possible explanation of not only what is going on, but also the underlying why or how.
Theory (scientific) :== a scientific model that has, through extensive and repeated successful testing, become part of the accepted scientific consensus of how reality works
Law (scientific) :== a component of a theory that has been expressed as an explicit relationship between variables (usually in the form of a mathematical equation).
Scientific Consensus :== the coherent view of the community of qualified professional scientists centered around papers published in reputable peer reviewed journals relevant to each subject.
Scientific Method :== The process of improving models by hypothesis testing, in the manner considered to be in line with best practice by the scientific consensus (source)
Theory (general) :== a guess of unknown reliability, the same as Hypothesis (general)
Belief (general) :== the psychological state in which an individual holds a particular premise to be true. (source)
Accept (scientific) :== Scientists do not 'believe' in the products of science, even in 'facts' or 'laws', because while very very reliable, they have only been proven in legal sense, through scientific inductive reasoning rather than through deduction, and therefore there is always microsopic room for doubt (even if not for reasonable doubt). Instead the preferred terminology is that they provisionally 'accept' a scientific theory as being reliable and well supported by evidence. (source)
Knowledge (philosophy) :== a justified true belief. (source)
Knowledge (information theory) :== a web of information upon which inductive or deductive reasoning can be applied reliably. (source)
Faith (social science) :== trust that goes beyond that warranted by the available objective evidence (source)
A Belief (philosophical/religious/political) :== a premise to which someone has allocated a higher probability of it being true than is warranted by the available objective evidence (ie they believe it based on faith). (source)
A Faith (religious) :== a trusting belief in a transcendant reality or supreme being. (source)
A Religion :== an explicit organised expression of a faith (eg Protestant, Muslim, etc). (source)
A Skeptic :== someone who tries to hold no beliefs (in the philosophical sense), instead acting in advance of 100% conclusive evidence, and bearing in the back of their mind the possibility of doubts, however small. (source)
A Theist :== someone who holds a belief in the existence of at least one supernatural deity. (source)
Atheist (Strong) :== "I believe that no supernatural deities exist."
Atheist (Weak) :== "I do not hold a belief in the existance of any supernatural deities."
Agnostic (Strong) :== "I believe that it is not possible for anyone to know whether supernatural deities exist or not."
Agnostic (Weak) :== "I personally don't know whether supernatural deities exist or not. I don't hold a belief 100% in either direction."
Apatheist (Type 1) :== "Whether or not a supernatural deity exists should not affect our perceptions of Good and Evil."
Apatheist (Type 2) :== "I don't care whether or not a supernatural deity exists. I'm not interested. It is not an important question."
Ignostic (Type 1) :== "The question 'Does God Exist' is meaningless,
because the concept of 'God' is meaningless." (also known as Theological
Noncognitivism)
Ignostic (Type 2) :== "The question 'Does God Exist' is meaningless, because the term 'God' is meaningless or insufficiently defined."
Creationism :== a theory (or family of theories) stating a particular view on how life, the universe and everything came about, involving a deliberate act by a supernatural deity
Creation (biology) :== the theory that humans do not share a common ancestor with (for example) horses
Evolution (general) :== change over time
Evolution (biology) :== the change in allele frequency over time, within a gene pool of a population. It does NOT cover:
- the period of expansion just after the
creation of the universe, or the creation itself
- how planets and stars get formed from clouds of gas.
- the creation of the initial life form from inanimate chemicals
- morality (how people ought to behave)
- how human cultures ought to develop
- whether one race is superior to another
The Theory of Evolution (also abbreviated to just "Evolution") :== the scientific theory of how evolution happens and species develop, the basics of which are accepted by the scientific consensus of biologists and include the idea that humans, horses, fish, trees, etc all share a common ancestry.
Intelligent Design :== the non-scientific theory that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain the observed complexity of nature, and that we must posit some form of intelligent designer.
Global Climate Change :== the scientific theory that the currently observed very fast changes in the Earth's global climate have been primarily caused by human activity rather than by the Earth's much slower natural climate cycles.
Liberalism (Political) :== emphasis on equality of all people under one common law
Liberalism (Cultural) :== against government intervention on issues of individual life style (eg freedom of religion, freedom of artistic expression, freedom of speach, freedom of thought)
Liberalism (Economic) :== freedom for individuals to own property and enter into contracts
Liberalism (Social) :== freedom to enjoy equality of opportunity
Comments:
(I'll edit this comment in future to answer questions specifically about atheism.)
What do Atheists believe?
Nothing.
Everyone believes in something. What do Atheists believe in?
Actually, some people do try to avoid having beliefs of any sort. Such people are called "rationalists" or "skeptics". Holding a "belief", in this sense of the word, means "attributing more certainty to a statement than you can justify using objective evidence". Skeptics tend not to hold beliefs in UFOs, ghosts, Elvis sightings, and many other things.
But you're right. Not all atheists are skeptics about everything. What the group of people referred to as "atheists" have in common is that they don't hold a belief in existence of supernatural deities.
Why is there even a name for that?
Because theologans came up with one. If academics started studying Elvis sightings, one of them would probably come up with a specific name for people who didn't hold a belief in Elvis still being alive.
So, Atheists believe that the God doesn't exist?
No, that would also be a belief. There is no absolute objective proof that a supernatural deity of some form doesn't exist, just as there is no conclusive proof that nowhere in the Universe does there exist a thousand mile high statue of Mickey Mouse - nobody has search every planet around every star to check for the absence of such a statue so, until they have, there is always a very very small remote possibility.
Does that mean Atheists are the same as Agnostics?
Technically an Agnostic might think there is some evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural deity, just not be 100% convinced. Though in practice, many think it is unknowable. It is quite possible to be both atheist and agnostic, and some use the phrase "toothy-fairy agnostic" to indicate which end of the agnostic spectrum they are.
But what is the point of life, if you don't believe in God?
Religion is not the only source of morality or purpose. Philosophers have advocated various ideas on how one should live, ever since Plato and the Ancient Greeks. Without one authorative source telling you what to do, you have to make up your own mind about which sources make sense, just like in the rest of life. That doesn't mean the truth is not out there and everything is relative - in fact there is a lot of agreement over basic morality.
Atheists think religion is useless, then?
Not necessarily. Not all religions or branches within a religion require a belief in supernatural deities. Some Atheists identify as being Secular Humanists, Unitarians or certain types of Buddhist, for example; and go along to meetings of their religion as a practical way to organise communal effort to do good in the world.
But if Atheists are not against religion, why do all Atheists attack religion?
They don't. Some Atheists support particular (non theistic) religions, and most don't care one way or the other about their neighbour's religious beliefs. It is just that you're more likely to notice the few whodo.
Ok, but why do some Atheists attack believers?
They don't. When was the last time you read about an Atheist strapping explosives to their chest, stepping into a Church, and shouting "Die in the name of Atheism" ? Physical attacks are incredibly rare, and it is important to distinguish between physically attacking someone, and just mocking or disagreeing with their views verbally. It is important to make this distinction because it is NOT rare for believers to commit acts of violence in the name of their religion. Such acts fill the newspapers every day, and it is unfair to tar Atheists with that brush.
*sigh* Why do some Atheists verbally attack the religious beliefs of some believers? We don't do any harm. Why won't they just leave us alone?
Of the small number of Atheists who do care about the issue enough to question the beliefs of others, different Atheists have different approaches and reasons.
Some Atheists used to be believers, before they wised up. They have the zeal of the convert, and are convinced that their previous faith was manipulative and harmful to those who supported it. They are out to free their bretheren from the chains of oppression, and see the pain of having a belief questioned as something the victims need to go through for their own good, like foul tasting medicine. (Most commonly seen in ex-Catholics, ex-Fundamentalists and ex-Scientologists.)
Some Atheists see supernatural Religion, as a whole, as being one of humanity's biggest mis-steps. They perceive the net effect of supernatural belief as having had a harmful effect upon history and society. They don't deny that some good comes out of it, but when they look at the past and the effect of religion in other countries, they think the good is outweighed by evils like priests torturing small children in Africa because they think the children might be witches. They want to get rid of such supernatural nonsense; lock, stock and barrel.
And some Atheists oppose specific actions by specific believers or types of believer, that have caused harm to themselves or those they care about. Examples include physical attacks by homophobes, early morning weekend door to door preaching, calling all Atheists pedophiles and satanists (of the rumoured 'eat your baby' sort), organising campaigns to alter the science curriculum in local schools, scaring children at Halloween with pamphlets threatening hellfire, and general rudeness.
Yes, but I didn't do any of that. I don't torture children or even be rude to Atheists online so it is well out of order to question things that I hold sacred - that have as deep an emotional connection to me as my children. Why can't Atheists just be polite?
Most of them are. However, this is a discussion forum. Why should your religious beliefs get a free pass, when no other sort of belief does? If you really can't stand your beliefs being questioned, don't post here.
(I'll edit this comment in future to answer questions specifically about evolution.)
(I'll edit this comment in future to answer questions specifically about global climate change.)
This is a great post. Feel free to link to it from The Science Spot if you want to!
LIKE
Already a member? Click here to log in
(I'll edit this comment in future to answer questions specifically about logic and the scientific method.)
- Clairwil
Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)