Do our resident conservatives and republicans truly believe women are biologically suited to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[Tupac Shakur]

Most of us take tons of things on faith. For example, I bet you believe in a lot of scientific concepts for which you can't actually provide a reasoned defense. You think you know the truth because you read it somewhere and have faith in the scientific method.

[N35t0r]

So are you just being obtuse, or you actually believe those scientific concepts are on the same level as the bible?

[Tupac Shakur]

I don't understand what you mean by "on the same level". Same level of what?

[N35t0r]

Probability of them being defensible through reasoning.

[Tupac Shakur]

Why would you describe "defensibility through reasoning" with probabilities? Something is either defensible or it is not.

[N35t0r]

So the bible or the whole of scientific knowledge are monolithical entities that are either defensible or not?

[Tupac Shakur]

No. That's a ridiculous strawman.

[-Jrabbit]

Most of us take tons of things on faith. For example, I bet you believe in a lot of scientific concepts for which you can't actually provide a reasoned defense. You think you know the truth because you read it somewhere and have faith in the scientific method.

So you're not saying I'm wrong, but rather that it's a pot/kettle situation. Fair enough. Personally, I think equating tradition and myth with logic and reason is a bit facile, but you, too, are entitled to your opinion.

[Tupac Shakur]

The fact that you equate the teachings of Christ and his apostles with "myth" says a lot about you.

It's not like BK was saying he thought the story of Jonah was completely factual.

[N35t0r]

I'm sure there's things in the bible that are true, and things in the bible that aren't. I'm also sure some things science holds as true today aren't (or at least, are simplified versions). Since I'm 1) not going to make a list of everything and determine its defensibility through reasoning
2) even then there's things I won't be able to be 100% certain of
I'm willing to fudge things a little, assign qualitative probabilities to both categories (maybe even subcategories or individual topics, as I come across them), and make my decisions using that.

Maybe I could have phrased my point better? I don't really think it worth to spend that much effort/time on a forum post, sorry.

Unless you think that everything that is taken on faith has the same 'value' (there must be a better word for what I mean, but it doesn't come to mind right now), then I don't really see the point of your comment.

[Tupac Shakur]

Since I'm 1) not going to make a list of everything and determine its defensibility through reasoning
2) even then there's things I won't be able to be 100% certain of

This is intelligently put, and a succinct summary of why we all have to accept things on faith.

I'm willing to fudge things a little, assign qualitative probabilities to both categories (maybe even subcategories or individual topics, as I come across them), and make my decisions using that.

This is retarded, and your "qualitative" probabilities are meaningless. Just stick with 1 and 2 above and be done with it.

Unless you think that everything that is taken on faith has the same 'value' (there must be a better word for what I mean, but it doesn't come to mind right now), then I don't really see the point of your comment.

'Value' is also a meaningless concept in this case, so I don't know why I would be concerned about it.

[Fake Boris]

qualitative probabilities

What Drake said.

[N35t0r]

This is intelligently put, and a succinct summary of why we all have to accept things on faith.

This is retarded, and your "qualitative" probabilities are meaningless. Just stick with 1 and 2 above and be done with it.

It's just the (badly worded) process that takes place after 1 and 2.

'Value' is also a meaningless concept, so I don't know why I would be concerned about it.

Yeah, I know, I don't like it either. I generally 'value' things my university teachers tell me about subjects they specialise in. On the other hand, I'm not willing to accept something a politician says is true as easily.

[Sava]

I prefer women to be the breadwinners. Then I can sit at home and fap all day.

[Aeson]

Why would you describe "defensibility through reasoning" with probabilities? Something is either defensible or it is not.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? The probabilities are very high based on historical data. There is still faith necessary that something catastrophic won't happen that causes it not to happen, but it's much, much less faith than is necessary to believe something that has never happened (or at least never been confirmed by anyone who's lived for a couple millenia).

Thus probabilities are very useful for determining how defensible a prediction about the future will be.