[Shocking?] Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Science is true whether or not we believe in it."

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Not so popular quotes:

 

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote by Robert A. Wilson:

 

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.

The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and

the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High

Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you

stop thinking about it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote by Jim Walker

History reveals that the consequences of beliefs have created mental barriers to understanding and has caused ignorance, misery, violence and war. Do humans need beliefs at all?

 

 

I express: One need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), when already, science persists.

 

So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary?

Footnote:

Snippet from "non-beliefism". (Sig)

Non beliefism (invented in 2016) is probably atheism's successor.

For more information, see "nonbeliefism", in the top level domain (TLD).

Edited March 11, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Argent]

Food is necessary.

 

Excessive food causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

Tainted food causes nausea, vomiting and sometimes death.

An obsession with food disrupts a balanced life-style.

 

I believe food and beliefs are similar.

[Strange]

 

So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary?

 

 

I don't know whether to believe that or not. Do you believe it?

 

 

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Quote by Robert A. Wilson:

Quote by Jim Walker

 

I also believe that argument from authority is a fallacy.

 

 

 

Non beliefism (invented in 2016) is probably atheism's successor.

 

I don't believe that.

 

 

 

see "nonbeliefism", in the top level domain (TLD).

 

So should I believe this and apply for the domain mywebsite.nonbeliefism?

 

I don't believe so. I believe you are wrong about what TLD means. Can you believe that?

Also, I don't believe this should be in religion.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

So should I believe this and apply for the domain mywebsite.nonbeliefism?

 

I don't believe so. I believe you are wrong about what TLD means. Can you believe that?

Also, I don't believe this should be in religion.

 

You don't need to believe in top level domains, neither do you need to formulate some (tld) theory.

 

A quick google reveals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains

 

As for the other portion of your responses, they are ignorable/irrelevant.

Food is necessary.

 

Excessive food causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

Tainted food causes nausea, vomiting and sometimes death.

An obsession with food disrupts a balanced life-style.

 

I believe food and beliefs are similar.

 

I edited in something in the original post, after you made your comment.

It may apply:

I express: "One need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), when already, science persists."

Edited March 11, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

 

You don't need to believe in top level domains, neither do you need to formulate some (tld) theory.

 

A quick google reveals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains

 

 

Thanks, that confirms my belief that nonbeleifism is not a TLD.

 

And confirms my belief that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

 

As for the other portion of your responses, they are ignorable/irrelevant.

 

You may believe that, but you are wrong.

 

 

 

One need not contact a paradigm

 

How do you contact a paradigm? Telephone?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Thanks, that confirms my belief that nonbeleifism is not a TLD.

 

And confirms my belief that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

How do you contact a paradigm? Telephone?

 

(a)

Top Level Domains have a particular format, where anyone may register.

Such is merely what I shall express regarding that topic.

 

 

 

(b)

In contacting a paradigm, you may approach that paradigm.

[Strange]

Top Level Domains have a particular format, where anyone may register.

 

 

Right. But there isn't one called "nonbeliefism".

 

This level of error means I am not inclined to believe the other things you say. Especially as you provide no evidence to support your ideas.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Right. But there isn't one called "nonbeliefism".

 

This level of error means I am not inclined to believe the other things you say. Especially as you provide no evidence to support your ideas.

(A)

Let us break things down.

Original statement: See nonbeliefism in the top level domain.

 

 

(1) Top level domains exist in a particular dns root zone.

(2) Following from (1) nonbeliefism exists in the dns root zone.

(3) No specification was given (in the original post), and so nonbeliefism exists in a common tld regime. (Though this common regime is specified in my signature)

 

 

 

 

(B)

Evidence is provided in sources via (A.3).

Edited March 11, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[fiveworlds]

Why belief is non-necessary (written by inventor of "non beliefism")

 

('A')

 

It took billions of years of evolution on planet earth, for a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism' to emerge, and I am its inventor.

 

 

 

('B')

 

Non-beliefism is a framework that may enhance thought, while underlining that belief is non necessary, for belief opposes science.

 

 

('C')

 

Here is one of "non beliefism's" premise sequences:

 

Separately, belief may constitute non-science.

Science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is non-scientific to believe.

 

 

 

★★★★★★★★★★

Simply, it is non-scientific to believe, as the concept of belief allows non-science, whereas science allows not non-science.

 

Therein, one need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), whence science persists.

 

 

 

('D')

 

Criticism is welcome.

 

 

You didn't invent atheism.... Don't you have something better to be doing with your time???

[Strange]

 

(A)

Let us break things down.

Original statement: See nonbeliefism in the top level domain.

 

 

Your grasp of English is very poor. "The" top-level domain implies that there is only one, or that you are referring to a specific TLD that has already been mentioned. I think you mean "a" top-level domain.

 

I am not going to guess which one it might be, as I assume it is full of the same sort of crap you post here.

 

 

(B)

Evidence is provided in sources via (A.3).

 

You have just chosen some quotations by famous people that support your belief.

 

But ... People's opinions are not evidence (except of their opinions). And appeal to authority is a fallacy.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Your grasp of English is very poor. "The" top-level domain implies that there is only one, or that you are referring to a specific TLD that has already been mentioned. I think you mean "a" top-level domain.

 

I am not going to guess which one it might be, as I assume it is full of the same sort of crap you post here.

 

 

You have just chosen some quotations by famous people that support your belief.

 

But ... People's opinions are not evidence (except of their opinions). And appeal to authority is a fallacy.

(1)

The top level domain is mentioned in my signature.

 

 

(2)

The evidence being referred to is not the quotes, but instead include studies concerning strong belief systems, religion.

 

 

You didn't invent atheism.... Don't you have something better to be doing with your time???

Atheism merely concerns lack of belief in god or gods. (See google)

 

Non beliefism concerns lack of the concept of belief. (ie lack of belief entirely)

Edited March 11, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

The question at hand in this topic of discussion is "do you think beliefs are necessary?"

 

Further discussion outside of that (including appealing to non-beliefism) is off-topic and posts deviating from the topic will be removed.

 

(That would include responses to this modnote in the thread)

 

[Strange]

So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary?

 

 

Yes, I believe so.

 

For example, Tyson obviously believes that science is true whether or not you believe in it. And Wilson believes that once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. And Walker (whoever he is) believes that beliefs caused ignorance, misery, violence and war.

 

Do any of them have evidence for these beliefs? Are they scientific conclusions based on research? Or just their personal opinions (i.e. beliefs)?

Edited March 11, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Yes, I believe so.

 

For example, Tyson obviously believes that science is true whether or not you believe in it. And Wilson believes that once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. And Walker (whoever he is) believes that beliefs caused ignorance, misery, violence and war.

 

Do any of them have evidence for these beliefs? Are they scientific conclusions based on research? Or just their personal opinions (i.e. beliefs)?

 

As I said before, I provide evidence linking strong beliefs to poorer performance in logical tasks.

 

Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions.

Edited March 12, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Argent]

 

Also, it is neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions.

Can you rephrase this sentence please. In its present form it does not appear to make sense. The best I can make of it is that you meant to say "It is neuroscience parlance that shows that beliefs construe delusions". Did you mean "construe"? I don't see how a belief can interpret a delusion. Perhaps you meant "beliefs constitute delusions", which is clumsy, but almost makes sense.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Can you rephrase this sentence please. In its present form it does not appear to make sense. The best I can make of it is that you meant to say "It is neuroscience parlance that shows that beliefs construe delusions". Did you mean "construe"? I don't see how a belief can interpret a delusion. Perhaps you meant "beliefs constitute delusions", which is clumsy, but almost makes sense.

 

(1)

Typo removed.

I had taken a response of mine from somewhere else (as your criticism was/is typical)

I modified that old response, without removing all the non-necessary components. (as it relates to this thread)

 

 

(2)

Anyways, here is a source to start with:

Delusions and the Role of Beliefs in Perceptual Inference http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/34/13701

 

etc etc

 

 

(3)

Thanks for indicating that I hadn't any signature.

I had forgotten to update it, prior to your notification.

Edited March 12, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

 

As I said before, I provide evidence linking strong beliefs to poorer performance in logical tasks.

 

 

Sorry. I missed that. Could you say which post this evidence was in (or post a link to it again).

 

 

 

Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions.

 

Do you have any evidence that belief leads to delusions? (I don't really know what you mean by "neuroscience parlance".)

 

(2)

Anyways, here is a source to start with:

Delusions and the Role of Beliefs in Perceptual Inference http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/34/13701

 

Well, thanks (and congratulations) on finally providing some references. However, as far as I can tell, all that says is that delusions are a class of beliefs.

 

But not all beliefs are delusional. I believe I will still be alive tomorrow. That is not (I hope!) a delusional belief.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Sorry. I missed that. Could you say which post this evidence was in (or post a link to it again).

 

 

Do you have any evidence that belief leads to delusions? (I don't really know what you mean by "neuroscience parlance".)

 

Well, thanks (and congratulations) on finally providing some references. However, as far as I can tell, all that says is that delusions are a class of beliefs.

 

But not all beliefs are delusional. I believe I will still be alive tomorrow. That is not (I hope!) a delusional belief.

 

(1)

Belief involves trust.

You don't need to trust that tomorrow shall arrive.

You may instead observe the probability that tomorrow shall come.

 

 

(2)

The sequences you have observed thus far shows that:

(i) Belief is non-scientific. (belief may refer to science, but there is no reason to keep beliefs that are observed to be likely non-scientific, when science already exists)

(ii) Belief is redundant. (we may observe probabilities without trusting or accepting them)

(iii) Belief yields delusions.

(iv) Beliefs/faiths tend to occur in beings of less intellect. (source from the top level domain introduced)

 

There is no reason to keep beliefs.

Edited March 12, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

 

(1)

Belief involves trust.

You don't need to trust that tomorrow shall arrive.

You may instead observe the probability that tomorrow shall come.

 

 

I didn't say anything about tomorrow coming. (Although it is implicit.)

 

There is no scientific evidence to say whether I will be alive tomorrow or not. So, I prefer to believe that I will be. It makes life easier.

 

Anyway, about that evidence... could you provide some?

 

 

 

The sequences you have observed thus far shows that:

 

All it shows is that you believe those things to be true. I find the arguments extremely unconvincing. Especially given the lack of scientific evidence to support your beliefs.

 

 

 

(iv) Beliefs/faiths tend to occur in beings of less intellect. (source from the top level domain introduced)

 

You are grossly misrepresenting that paper in order to support your beliefs.

 

It does not say anything about beliefs in general and intelligence, but is specifically about religiosity. (But congratulations for at least attempting to provide some evidence.)

[Argent]

 

(1)

Typo removed.

I had taken a response of mine from somewhere else (as your criticism was/is typical)

I modified that old response, without removing all the non-necessary components. (as it relates to this thread)

 

With the typo removed your statement reads "Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions."

 

Unfortunately that statement still makes no sense. I repeat one of my original questions. How can a belief construe (interpret, understand) a delusion? I am trying to understand your argument, but if it contains nonsensical statements that becomes a difficult goal.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

With the typo removed your statement reads "Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions."

 

Unfortunately that statement still makes no sense. I repeat one of my original questions. How can a belief construe (interpret, understand) a delusion? I am trying to understand your argument, but if it contains nonsensical statements that becomes a difficult goal.

 

See the neuroscience paper provided in reply #16.

 

 

I didn't say anything about tomorrow coming. (Although it is implicit.)

 

There is no scientific evidence to say whether I will be alive tomorrow or not. So, I prefer to believe that I will be. It makes life easier.

 

Anyway, about that evidence... could you provide some?

 

 

All it shows is that you believe those things to be true. I find the arguments extremely unconvincing. Especially given the lack of scientific evidence to support your beliefs.

 

 

You are grossly misrepresenting that paper in order to support your beliefs.

 

It does not say anything about beliefs in general and intelligence, but is specifically about religiosity. (But congratulations for at least attempting to provide some evidence.)

 

(1)

My prior speech: "people with beliefs/faith are generally less intelligent", according to paper x.

Where is the gross misrepresentation?

Are religious beliefs, not beliefs?

 

 

 

(2)

It is empirically observable, given the laws of physics, that tomorrow is probable.

 

 

 

(3)

I don't need to believe in them, because science shows these.

 

We observe empirically that:

 

(i) Belief is non-scientific. (Where science occurs without non-science, belief is likely to occur with non-science)

(ii) Belief is redundant.(Whether or not belief exists, things persist. (Example science persists whether or not people believe in science))

(iii) Belief yields delusions. (See paper provided regarding beliefs and delusions)

(iv) Beliefs/faiths tend to occur in beings of less intellect. (See paper provided regarding religiosity and intelligence)

Furthermore, I don't need to believe/trust in any data sequence.

Are you saying that one must trust something?

Edited March 12, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[EdEarl]

 

OP

So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary?

Yes.

I believe things I observe, with the caveat that some observations can deceive, for example slight of hand. The most reliable observations are made by honest scientists; however, dishonest scientists exist, which means one must be skeptical. One does not need to believe anything without being able to experience some evidence.

[Argent]

 

See the neuroscience paper provided in reply #16.

 

The paper does not use the word construe at any point. Will you please state clearly what you mean by the statement. "Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions."

 

This could have been sorted several posts back if you had answered the question directly then. Please do so now and stop equivocating. I would definitely appreciate it. Surely you wish your audience to understand your argument?

[Strange]

 

(1)

My prior speech: "people with beliefs/faith are generally less intelligent", according to paper x.

Where is the gross misrepresentation?

Are religious beliefs, not beliefs?

 

 

Jeez. Yes, religious beliefs are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religious.

 

You need to see if a local college has an introductory class in logic.

 

 

 

(2)

It is empirically observable, given the laws of physics, that tomorrow is probable.

 

Jesus H Christ. Maybe that college will do a reading comprehension course as well.

 

I am going to type this slowly, so you have a chance of understanding it.

 

I am not talking about the probability of tomorrow occurring. That is a given.

 

I. AM. NOT. TALKING. ABOUT. THE. PROBABILITY. OF. TOMORROW.

 

Get it?

 

What I said was:

 

There is no scientific evidence to say whether I will be alive tomorrow or not. So, I prefer to believe that I will be. It makes life easier.

 

So, yes, beliefs are a necessary part of surviving in a world with unknowns. Some people belief that everyone is good, others belief that everyone is wicked. They live their lives according to these beliefs.

 

 

I don't need to believe in them, because science shows these.

We observe empirically that:

 

You have not yet presented these empirical results. You have simply repeated your assertions (a.k.a. beliefs).

 

 

Furthermore, I don't need to believe/trust in any data sequence.

Are you saying that one must trust something?

 

Yes, we have to trust that the measurements we make, the data we get, etc. are reliable and objective (in some sense) and can be used to test our hypotheses.

[EdEarl]

 

There is no scientific evidence to say whether I will be alive tomorrow or not. So, I prefer to believe that I will be. It makes life easier.

There is no evidence that I shall die by tomorrow. Observation: Life strives to survive another second, another minute, hour, day, etc. Thus, I assume I shall be alive