63d
@pettytalk saidshhh, cauliflowers have ears.
According to my knowledge, there are various colored cauliflowers. From which color does knowledge spring? In my opinion it's from the green one, but in particular the Roman Cauliflower with its particular geometric shape.
The Romanesco cauliflower indeed has a unique geometric shape that distinguishes it from other varieties of cauliflower. This shape is the result o ...[text shortened]... chnica.com/science/2021/07/what-fractals-fibonacci-and-the-golden-ratio-have-to-do-with-cauliflower/
63d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt is the definition of the word "faith," I'm not pushing my definition of the word. I'm also not misusing it either, you must have faith in what you are attempting to can be done, you must have faith in how you are about to do it is the proper way it should be done, and you must have faith that how you are viewing both your data and your conclusions are how they should be viewed as well if you don't believe in what you are doing and why, why bother?
You are still using it incorrectly.
Wake up!
63d
@kellyjay saidWould you say that someone’s knowledge that 1+2=3 equals 2+1=3 is based on faith (that the law of commutativity is correct)?
It is the definition of the word "faith," I'm not pushing my definition of the word. I'm also not misusing it either, you must have faith in what you are attempting to can be done, you must have faith in how you are about to do it is the proper way it should be done, and you must have faith that how you are viewing both your data and your conclusions are how they should be viewed as well if you don't believe in what you are doing and why, why bother?
@moonbus saidWould you accept it as correct if you didn't believe it? You have to have faith in that which you deem true and correct, even if your faith is in error, your acceptance of what you think real will cause your knowledge to be either accurate or not.
Would you say that someone’s knowledge that 1+2=3 equals 2+1=3 is based on faith (that the law of commutativity is correct)?
63d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFaith is a heart thing, you can have head knowledge, but if that isn't a heartfelt belief it can easily be passed up or ignored. The process of getting something beyond it is possible to, I know it, starts with putting those things through what you believe is required that can validate your query. Putting a device on some piece of a requirement for a reading doesn't require faith, taking the results and acting on them shows you have faith in the device and its readings.
Faith is a heart thing. It has very little to do with the brain. - What I know is based on accumulated knowledge that I have confidence in, based on reasoned argument and evidence.
I am confident a rock exists because it is a tangible thing that I can touch and study. I don't have faith that the rock exists. - You have faith that God exists, something that can't b ...[text shortened]... le of you having an idea fixed in your head and being blinkered to anything said to you in response.
62d
@kellyjay saidWhen there is a gap (for example, how life began) 'faith' has you believe God did it, despite the lack of any tangible evidence. (I do not accept a book as evidence as you can not evidence it is God's word and not of human authorship). - In contrast I am happy to recognise the gap and say that at this time we don't have the answer. This isn't a weakness in my position it is a strength. The weakness lies in 'faith,' believing in an answer that is unvalidated.
Faith is a heart thing, you can have head knowledge, but if that isn't a heartfelt belief it can easily be passed up or ignored. The process of getting something beyond it is possible to, I know it, starts with putting those things through what you believe is required that can validate your query. Putting a device on some piece of a requirement for a reading doesn't ...[text shortened]... re faith, taking the results and acting on them shows you have faith in the device and its readings.
Faith replaces knowledge.
62d
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFaith and knowledge are adjuncts. One can easily have both, and they amplify each other. They CAN stand alone, but when they do, one misses a portion of the complete picture. I know both you and KJ do not agree, but I maintain that you both are missing a piece of the puzzle as a result.
When there is a gap (for example, how life began) 'faith' has you believe God did it, despite the lack of any tangible evidence. (I do not accept a book as evidence as you can not evidence it is God's word and not of human authorship). - In contrast I am happy to recognise the gap and say that at this time we don't have the answer. This isn't a weakness in my position ...[text shortened]... weakness lies in 'faith,' believing in an answer that is unvalidated.
Faith replaces knowledge.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFaith is simply walking out what is accepted as truth, as I pointed out to you we seek to understand the universe because we believe we can, there is faith there or it wouldn't happen. We set up means to validate our hypotheses because we believe it can be done, not only because we think we have something to validate but also because we believe what we are setting up can prove it.
When there is a gap (for example, how life began) 'faith' has you believe God did it, despite the lack of any tangible evidence. (I do not accept a book as evidence as you can not evidence it is God's word and not of human authorship). - In contrast I am happy to recognise the gap and say that at this time we don't have the answer. This isn't a weakness in my position ...[text shortened]... weakness lies in 'faith,' believing in an answer that is unvalidated.
Faith replaces knowledge.
Our faith even helps define us this way too, hate-mongering reveals what is inside of someone as no matter what they see it is almost always a reason to justify their hate.
Validation is believing "faith" sets us on the path of building our worldviews, if we are building them with truth or bias confirmation of errors can take us places we want to go, even if it isn't a good place. We study life's mysteries because we believe it's a good thing to know! Now we may want it to be the way we want it to be, or we could be disciplined to see it the way it is. Our faith (beliefs) are always going to be our starting point, not wanting to fool ourselves by going all in on what we want, that is the danger of seeing what is there, and rejecting the truth about it.
62d
@suzianne saidI think 'faith' is a loaded word and in this context isn't helpful. (Due to its religious connotations). I do of course put 'trust' in the knowledge ascertained by science and the like, but this trust is based on evidence and reasoning. 'Faith' as Kelly uses it, is belief when evidence isn't verifiable. This is very different from an evidence reliant trust.
Faith and knowledge are adjuncts. One can easily have both, and they amplify each other. They CAN stand alone, but when they do, one misses a portion of the complete picture. I know both you and KJ do not agree, but I maintain that you both are missing a piece of the puzzle as a result.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe original meaning makes it very clear! The fact some want to alter the meaning to accommodate a preferred narrative makes it loaded. Something or someone faithful is trustworthy, unfaithful person or thing is untrustworthy.
I think 'faith' is a loaded word and in this context isn't helpful. (Due to its religious connotations). I do of course put 'trust' in the knowledge ascertained by science and the like, but this trust is based on evidence and reasoning. 'Faith' as Kelly uses it, is belief when evidence isn't verifiable. This is very different from an evidence reliant trust.
The desire to push for a quality of untrustworthiness due to lack of integrity because no evidence for the definition of the word faith, is an upside down use of the word.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt is the verifiably of data and all things that I am using the word faith to precede knowledge, in our search for understanding what we apply in our search and why is what we are putting our faith in. Afterwards our conclusions are based on those very methods of reasoning, are also colored by our faith!
I think 'faith' is a loaded word and in this context isn't helpful. (Due to its religious connotations). I do of course put 'trust' in the knowledge ascertained by science and the like, but this trust is based on evidence and reasoning. 'Faith' as Kelly uses it, is belief when evidence isn't verifiable. This is very different from an evidence reliant trust.
62d
@kellyjay saidYou are using 'faith' incorrectly in a transparent attempt to suggest faith in God is no different than faith in science. This is fundamentally wrong. Science is evidence based. Religion is not.
The original meaning makes it very clear! The fact some want to alter the meaning to accommodate a preferred narrative makes it loaded. Something or someone faithful is trustworthy, unfaithful person or thing is untrustworthy.
The desire to push for a quality of untrustworthiness due to lack of integrity because no evidence for the definition of the word faith, is an upside down use of the word.
62d
@kellyjay saidI put trust in the scientific process. This is not the same as the faith you put into God's existence.
It is the verifiably of data and all things that I am using the word faith to precede knowledge, in our search for understanding what we apply in our search and why is what we are putting our faith in. Afterwards our conclusions are based on those very methods of reasoning, are also colored by our faith!
62d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am using it as defined you are attempting to pigeon hole it to only apply to a very narrow application.
You are using 'faith' incorrectly in a transparent attempt to suggest faith in God is no different than faith in science. This is fundamentally wrong. Science is evidence based. Religion is not.