Christianity is blind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
in fact, even direct observation is not direct. Light travels at a speed of about 6 microseconds per mile and a ship on the horizon would be about 6 or so miles or about 36 microseconds from the observation in time. That means if something happens on that ship after the light has reached you, you would not see the results for another 36 microseconds. So sup ...[text shortened]... etriment of the human race and most life forms on Earth. So do you really even observe ANYTHING?

Of course, I know all this. What I don't know is why you think it supports the conclusion that observation is never direct. Right now I'm at a cafe and there is a tree in front of me. I want to say that I have a direct observation of the tree. That is, I am not observing the tree by virtue of observing some other object. I am not, for instance, indirectly observing the tree by virtue of directly observing its reflection in a cafe window. I am not even more indirectly observing the tree by virtue of indirectly observing its reconstructed image in the cafe's security feed. Even given the scientific story, there is still conceptual room for the direct/indirect distinction.

Yes, I am only able to observe the tree because light is reflecting off the tree, impinging on my sensory systems, causing patterns of neural activation that are either identical to or eventuate in a perceptual experience of the tree. This is how visual perception occurs in creatures like us. But none of that entails, or even suggests, that I do not directly observe the tree.

Rather, instances of observation are instantiated in creatures like us via a causal story of the sort above. Scientific inquiry explains how observations occur, not that there are no observations, direct or otherwise. When we discovered that water was H2O, we didn't thereby discover that there is no such thing as water.

Originally posted by bbarr
I think you're running together two different things: 1) S observing P and, 2) S being justified in believing that he is observing P.

There is no plausible construal of 'faith' such that it's required for (1). If P is the case and S is (appropriately) causally connected to the fact that P, then S observes P. The heavy lifting here is spelling out what ...[text shortened]... and address. Knowing that P, like justifiably believing P, doesn't require epistemic certainty.

I think you're running together two different things: 1) S observing P and, 2) S being justified in believing that he is observing P.
No doubt.

There is no plausible construal of 'faith' such that it's required for (1). If P is the case and S is (appropriately) causally connected to the fact that P, then S observes P. The heavy lifting here is spelling out what constitutes an appropriate causal connection between S and the fact that P.
Can S observe P and be wrong?
I see the players riding spinners, observe the direction of said spinners and they appear to spin in a direction opposite to the momentum of their vehicles.

But note that these are only requirements if Internalism about epistemic justification is correct. If Externalism is correct, then S doesn't need these further, supporting reasons.
I don't see how the internalism/externalism has bearing on the topic.

Rather, S simply needs to be a reliable observer in fact.
"Observer in fact" being the operative portion here, to be sure.

It's logically possible you're wrong about your name, address, etc., so since there's a chance you're wrong, your beliefs about your name and address can't be justified. But that's absurd. You know your name and address. Knowing that P, like justifiably believing P, doesn't require epistemic certainty.
I agree on some, but hold out on this one point: my "knowledge" is entirely dependent upon my frame of reference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you say that the Higgs Boson was observed at Cern?

Of course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detection? Rather, we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.

Originally posted by bbarr
Of course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detecti ...[text shortened]... idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.

"...we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature."

That's one way of saying it. Another way is that positing it helps solve some problems in the agreement between our mathematical models and our observations.

Originally posted by JS357
"...we infer the existence of the Higgs Boson based on the detection of its idiosyncratic decay signature."

That's one way of saying it. Another way is that positing it helps solve some problems in the agreement between our mathematical models and our observations.

Sure. But there are any number of posits that could reconcile our mathematical models with our observations. Why posit the Higgs Boson? Presumably, because this posit coheres with other theory, has explanatory depth, has testable implications we've been unable to disconfirm, etc. We posit the Higgs Boson rather than positing things like gravity-fairies because positing the Higgs Boson is justified by our observations and experiments. But to say that positing the Higgs Boson is justified is very similar to saying that inferring the existence of the Higgs Boson is justified. I like your epistemic caution, though. It makes for good science.

Originally posted by Dasa
How can Christians not see that the earth is more than 6500 yrs old?

They just miss the mark by billions of yrs.

This is blindness at its greatest.

Or is it just plain old dishonesty.

Wut do you care?

Originally posted by bbarr
Sure. But there are any number of posits that could reconcile our mathematical models with our observations. Why posit the Higgs Boson? Presumably, because this posit coheres with other theory, has explanatory depth, has testable implications we've been unable to disconfirm, etc. We posit the Higgs Boson rather than positing things like gravity-fairi ...[text shortened]... the Higgs Boson is justified. I like your epistemic caution, though. It makes for good science.

There is one voice of dissent on the Higgs:

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html

Originally posted by bbarr
Of course not. No more than one observes a thief simply by discovering his footprints. To be clear, I believe the existence of the Higgs Boson has been pretty strongly confirmed. Further, it has been confirmed by experimental observations. But that doesn't mean the Higgs Boson has itself been observed. How could it be, when it decays too quickly for detecti ...[text shortened]... idiosyncratic decay signature. When physicists claim otherwise, they're speaking very loosely.

http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/higgs-boson

On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV.

In common usage, people do speak very loosely.

https://m.facebook.com/191900549668/photos/a.220794709668.166465.191900549668/10152885132699669/?type=1&source=46

Originally posted by whodey
Wut do you care?

I care that there are falsehood's being taught to our children / and thus creating an ignorant generation.

However that is only 1 falsehood / and sadly there are many more taught by false religion.

Originally posted by Dasa
I care that there are falsehood's being taught to our children / and thus creating an ignorant generation.

They let you have children in there?