Does one environment affect/forms ones beliefs?

Yes, ones environment definitely affects ones beliefs. For example if you live in a hot dry sandy climate, you are statistically more likely to believe in Allah. Hot humid monsoonal climates like the Indian subcontinent, make it more likely that you will believe in Shiva and Vishnu. Cool rainy climes like the emerald island inspire either a worship of trees, or a strong Catholic Faith. If you live in Antarctica, you probably believe hell has frozen over, at least for half the year anyway.

[Claude]

Most scientists believe just in science which leads to philosophical materialism.

Originally Posted by Claude

Most scientists believe just in science which leads to philosophical materialism.

Perhaps, but just because scientists believe in something does not make what they believe in science. If a scientist is speaking as a scientist, and doing so correctly, then their answer to many or most spiritual and religious questions is going to be that science can't answer that question. If they take off their scientific hat, then I suspect many will espouse some sort of material based reality. This is not because that is what the frontiers of science indicate, but because most scientists are only scientific authorities in their area of specialty, the vast majority of which are based on materialism based models that work well enough for the purposes of their specialty. If their area of specialty happens to be theoretical physics, including relativity and quantum physics, then they will tell one about findings that do not necessarily indicate a philosophical materialism at all. Ironically, if one of those scientists tells your average lay person, which should probably include many scientists from other areas of specialty, as well as the spiritual, religious or even atheistic, about how those findings may not point to a material based reality, and instead to one of philosophical idealism, those persons are likely to reject those arguments because they don't align with what their spiritual or religious beliefs, eyes, or common sense, or even their area of scientific discipline are telling them. As one learns about science, progressing from the applied disciplines to the theoretical frontiers, one will notice that one is repeatedly being told that what you were taught previously, though a plenty good approximation of how things work for those disciplines, is not actually how they do, and outside of those disciplines a very different model of reality must be used. But of course even those new models of realities are just models as well, and yet even those scientists tend to forget that and mistake them for actual reality, until eventually those models are replaced. All just a reminder that in the end science is a human endeavour.

Just because one's senses, or common sense, tell one something, it does not make it so. Just because the whole parish believes something, or the popular guru says something, it does not make it so. Just because a scientist says or believes something, does not necessarily make that something so, or even make it science.

Its a human thing.

In my case I would say it was my own experiences that form my spirituality, I come from a non spiritual family, you see.

[Claude]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps, but just because scientists believe in something does not make what they believe in science. If a scientist is speaking as a scientist, and doing so correctly, then their answer to many or most spiritual and religious questions is going to be that science can't answer that question. If they take off their scientific hat, then I suspect many will espouse some sort of material based reality. This is not because that is what the frontiers of science indicate, but because most scientists are only scientific authorities in their area of specialty, the vast majority of which are based on materialism based models that work well enough for the purposes of their specialty. If their area of specialty happens to be theoretical physics, including relativity and quantum physics, then they will tell one about findings that do not necessarily indicate a philosophical materialism at all.
What about the Earth rotating? Despite what someone believes or not this happens. What about night/day cycles in most of the geographical areas.

What about the Earth rotating? Despite what someone believes or not this happens. What about night/day cycles in most of the geographical areas.
What about gravity?

Originally Posted by ketzer

Ironically, if one of those scientists tells your average lay person, which should probably include many scientists from other areas of specialty, as well as the spiritual, religious or even atheistic, about how those findings may not point to a material based reality, and instead to one of philosophical idealism, those persons are likely to reject those arguments because they don't align with what their spiritual or religious beliefs, eyes, or common sense, or even their area of scientific discipline are telling them. As one learns about science, progressing from the applied disciplines to the theoretical frontiers, one will notice that one is repeatedly being told that what you were taught previously, though a plenty good approximation of how things work for those disciplines, is not actually how they do, and outside of those disciplines a very different model of reality must be used. But of course even those new models of realities are just models as well, and yet even those scientists tend to forget that and mistake them for actual reality, until eventually those models are replaced. All just a reminder that in the end science is a human endeavour.

I agree, that's why some would identify as agnostic on the subject.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Just because one's senses, or common sense, tell one something, it does not make it so. Just because the whole parish believes something, or the popular guru says something, it does not make it so. Just because a scientist says or believes something, does not necessarily make that something so, or even make it science.

Its a human thing.

I agree, perhaps what spirituality and QM have in common is the mysterious nature, though some people who label as 'spiritual' tend to abuse the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Thank you for the explanation, this was beautiful. Perhaps, most scientists even the ones who say "I don't know", would regard spirituality as delusion and the people who claim it with mental disorders, i.e schizophrenia. Everything 'spiritual' could be labeled as mental disorders and delusion/wishful thinking by neuro scientists thus reducing everything to the philosophical materialist view.


Right, but what about a scientist telling someone that the earth spins? It spins regardless of someone's belief.

What about a scientist telling someone that if they'll just dry fast they'll soon die?

Perhaps everything is subjective. On one hand philosophical dualists say they are right, on the other hand philosophical idealists say they are right, the same for panpsychists, and so on and so forth. So who is right? If there is no objective reality, but just subjective reality, is everyone right within their own Universe, with some intersections between those Universes? Making decisions? No problem...double slit is there (as I already thought about those options, or if I had to make a decision based on at least 2 options, multiple Universes arose, each with it's own path)....this calls for Occam's razor. Simulation theory? Dream-state theory? Or is it more like the first paragraph such as something happening despite someone's belief? (this would contradict the first sentence from this last paragraph). Or is it MWI (Everett)..Occam's razor yet again...I honestly don't know.

Originally Posted by Claude

What about the Earth rotating? Despite what someone believes or not this happens. What about night/day cycles in most of the geographical areas.

What about gravity?

I agree, that's why some would identify as agnostic on the subject.


I agree, perhaps what spirituality and QM have in common is the mysterious nature, though some people who label as 'spiritual' tend to abuse the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Thank you for the explanation, this was beautiful. Perhaps, most scientists even the ones who say "I don't know", would regard spirituality as delusion and the people who claim it with mental disorders, i.e schizophrenia. Everything 'spiritual' could be labeled as mental disorders and delusion/wishful thinking by neuro scientists thus reducing everything to the philosophical materialist view.


Right, but what about a scientist telling someone that the earth spins? It spins regardless of someone's belief.

What about a scientist telling someone that if they'll just dry fast they'll soon die?

Perhaps everything is subjective. On one hand philosophical materialists say they are right, on the other hand philosophical idealists say they are right, the same for panpsychists, neutral monists and so on and so forth. So who is right? If there is no objective reality, but just subjective reality, is everyone right within their own Universe, with some intersections between those Universes? Making decisions? No problem...double slit is there (as I already thought about those options, or if I had to make a decision based on at least 2 options, multiple Universes arose, each with it's own path)....this calls for Occam's razor. Simulation theory? Dream-state theory? Or is it more like the first paragraph such as something happening despite someone's belief? (this would contradict the first sentence from this last paragraph). Or is it MWI (Everett)..Occam's razor yet again...I honestly don't know.

Yes, honesty makes us all in the end say we don't know. As to your first objection, I am afraid you are reading my point backwards.

"What about the Earth rotating? Despite what someone believes or not this happens. What about night/day cycles in most of the geographical areas."

I am not saying that just because scientists don't say something it isn't so either. Scientist don't control reality, they only seek to describe it.
The point I am making is that scientists are human beings, they are not "science". People will often personify science, and then say science says this or believes that, when what they really mean is that some/many/most scientists say or believe this or that. One of the critical errors I see scientists themselves make, and it is only too human of an error to make, is to assume that because the majority of scientists believe in a theory, or even that the preponderance of scientific evidence support something, that therefore it must be so. Or conversely, because there is not evidence for something that reaches a level of rigor so as to be considered scientific evidence, that it somehow proves it is not so. A good scientist, well really anyone who seeks to ascribe a level of truth to anything based on facts and evidence, should be operating on the basis of degrees of ascribed credence, with zero and one being unattainable by human endeavour, and the needle always moving one way or another based on new information. Yes people will cite intuition or mystical experience and that is all well and good for them, but they should not necessarily expect that others will assign a high degree of credence to another's intuitions and personal experiences

What one finds almost comical when looking from outside of the scientific debates is how territorial and aggressive some of the leading scientist become in defending their interpretations and beliefs. Yet, it should be expected as scientists are human beings and as such have egos like anyone else. Much of their image of self, not to mention their pay checks, is tied up in their education and academic reputations, so it is not too surprising that they feel a particularly sharp existential threat when their expertise is challenged. When a young Richard Feynman first presented his path integral formulation along with his diagrams, the leading physicists of the day got so angry at such nonsense that they walked out on his presentation. A good example of ones academic and professional environment affecting one's beliefs.

As a metaphorical tool, Occam's razor is a useful one to use when most of the other tools of evidence, logic, and reason have done what they can. Yet the history of science warns against wielding it too quickly as it can be prone to cutting the user as well. Even when it is used properly, one should not be too quick to toss the cuttings in the trash as more then once, the picture resulting from using it proved to be incomplete or distorted once those pieces were removed and later needed to be taped back on. Einstein's cosmological constant being a good example of a later regrettable quick cut made to make something fit the existing common sense scientific dogma of the day.

As for the rest of that vegetable soup of theories and hypotheses you mentioned, floating around at the edge of the scientific frontiers, they are all very interesting, but as a whole, I would say a good scientists might say they feel strongly about one or another, but that they don't know, and the scientific jury is still out. Of course their egos may flare up and say something different, but then like I said, scientists are human beings. They have beliefs about science, but those beliefs do not control reality. I have my own favorites and biases but like anyone, I don't know which are true or not, or even ultimately how truth and reality work.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Claude

Right, but what about a scientist telling someone that the earth spins? It spins regardless of someone's belief.

according to commonly held models of this specific day and age on this planet by human beings, yes. That doesn't preclude other models from working just as well though, so that someone who held to one of those could call this one a lie just as easily as you are calling it the truth. And have every bit as much standing to do so as you do. The only difference being you believe one and they believe the other and you both refuse to see the points the other has made; so who wins comes down to who has the bigger stick more than any accurate definition of how things 'work'.

for example it is not entirely true that the sun does not circle the earth, because with some elaboration you could make a model of exactly what the orbit of the sun around the earth is. Not simple, and such an orbit would be very erratic, but you CAN make a model of it if you want. So blindly saying the sun does not go around the earth is somewhat misleading.

Someone who went to the effort to study such an orbit for a long time and make it their life would have every bit as much right to claim it as we do that it doesn't happen... but I suppose then we would have arguments about how you MUST adhere to occam's razor at all costs. Again the people with the bigger stick have already won that one.

But the religion of occam's razor can be debunked with a suitable alternative model...

[Claude]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, honesty makes us all in the end say we don't know. As to your first objection, I am afraid you are reading my point backwards.

Apologies for that.

Originally Posted by ketzer

I am not saying that just because scientists don't say something it isn't so either. Scientist don't control reality, they only seek to describe it.
The point I am making is that scientists are human beings, they are not "science". People will often personify science, and then say science says this or believes that, when what they really mean is that some/many/most scientists say or believe this or that. One of the critical errors I see scientists themselves make, and it is only too human of an error to make, is to assume that because the majority of scientists believe in a theory, or even that the preponderance of scientific evidence support something, that therefore it must be so. Or conversely, because there is not evidence for something that reaches a level of rigor so as to be considered scientific evidence, that it somehow proves it is not so. A good scientist, well really anyone who seeks to ascribe a level of truth to anything based on facts and evidence, should be operating on the basis of degrees of ascribed credence, with zero and one being unattainable by human endeavour, and the needle always moving one way or another based on new information. Yes people will cite intuition or mystical experience and that is all well and good for them, but they should not necessarily expect that others will assign a high degree of credence to another's intuitions and personal experiences

What one finds almost comical when looking from outside of the scientific debates is how territorial and aggressive some of the leading scientist become in defending their interpretations and beliefs. Yet, it should be expected as scientists are human beings and as such have egos like anyone else. Much of their image of self, not to mention their pay checks, is tied up in their education and academic reputations, so it is not too surprising that they feel a particularly sharp existential threat when their expertise is challenged. When a young Richard Feynman first presented his path integral formulation along with his diagrams, the leading physicists of the day got so angry at such nonsense that they walked out on his presentation. A good example of ones academic and professional environment affecting one's beliefs.

As a metaphorical tool, Occam's razor is a useful one to use when most of the other tools of evidence, logic, and reason have done what they can. Yet the history of science warns against wielding it too quickly as it can be prone to cutting the user as well. Even when it is used properly, one should not be too quick to toss the cuttings in the trash as more then once, the picture resulting from using it proved to be incomplete or distorted once those pieces were removed and later needed to be taped back on. Einstein's cosmological constant being a good example of a later regrettable quick cut made to make something fit the existing common sense scientific dogma of the day.

As for the rest of that vegetable soup of theories and hypotheses you mentioned, floating around at the edge of the scientific frontiers, they are all very interesting, but as a whole, I would say a good scientists might say they feel strongly about one or another, but that they don't know, and the scientific jury is still out. Of course their egos may flare up and say something different, but then like I said, scientists are human beings. They have beliefs about science, but those beliefs do not control reality. I have my own favorites and biases but like anyone, I don't know which are true or not, or even ultimately how truth and reality work.

On one hand for the most of it I agree, there are a plethora of physicists that for example hold on to MWI.

On the other hand, there are plenty of arguments to support that the fundamentals laws of the Universe (on a basic level) are pretty well understood to rule-out something like elves, which can't be seen/felt/smelled/tasted/heard or even detected (going as low as quarks), nothing more than anything imaginary. Then there are those people who claim they interacted with the so called elves just to find out they were labeled with schizophrenia or other mental health issues, reducing everything to that conditions, fooling themselves.

[Moonglow]

Hello,

The exchange in regards to science brought some thoughts.

As far as scientists saying the research is to prove or not Gid or support a "spiritual" established belief, leads me to think that such claims would possibly threaten funding they may receive. For may not be seen as being academic, as much as religious (possibly).

Science is a very broad field. To me, can not generalize as just being one way.
Sure still have plenty to understand and learn. Science, to me contains many fields of study.

Much like Spiritual studies in general contains many fields of practices and ways of understanding, IMO.

Both, can have thier impact upon a person/group according to what may be related to, understood, and believed and/or felt to be. (Even if just at the moment). As I see it at present.

Originally Posted by Claude

Apologies for that.



On one hand for the most of it I agree, there are a plethora of physicists that for example hold on to MWI.

On the other hand, there are plenty of arguments to support that the fundamentals laws of the Universe (on a basic level) are pretty well understood to rule-out something like elves, which can't be seen/felt/smelled/tasted/heard or even detected (going as low as quarks), nothing more than anything imaginary. Then there are those people who claim they interacted with the so called elves just to find out they were labeled with schizophrenia or other mental health issues, reducing everything to that conditions, fooling themselves.

Yes, all that is true, but of course these are the same things that were being said about classical physics in the late 1800s, and look how far from that we have come today. That said, not knowing what is, one assigns different levels of credence to different beliefs, theories, hypotheses, and just plain conjecture. If someone asked me to assign the highest levels of credence regarding elves, I would pretty much do so in alignment with what you say. Yet, one does not need to lower the credence bar too far before one can start to suppose, hypothesis, and flesh out theories that try to incorporate all of those weird and wonderfully bizarre effects of quantum and relativistic science and end up in a theoretical place that would allow for elves. Doesn't mean there are elves, but we are outside of the boundary of science here, so we are allowed some leeway in what we suppose could be and how. The more leeway we take, the more credence we need to give up. But, that is why we come here instead of the physics forum.

Science, in an attempt to come to some sort of common interpretation of reality, puts in place boundaries and requirements regarding evidence and repeatability, etc. But the more strict those requirements are, the more theories and hypotheses must be left outside of "agreed upon science", to the extent such agreement exists, until such time as it can meet those requirements. Who knows what is, but has not, or maybe even never could, meet those requirements. My feeling is there is far far more outside those boundaries, then we have currently brought inside. So, while I am not going to put money on the table saying there are elves out there, it is a pleasant thing to allow oneself to wonder 'what if' once and awhile. Especially if perhaps one particular elf maybe wears a red suit and drives a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer. Even science needs to take a day off now and then.

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed." Albert Einstein