String theory is what?

[hackenslash]

So what is it I'm wrong about, exactly? You post contradictory statements, then attempt to defend it by citing some bollocks erected by uber-credulous navel-gazers that has bugger all to do with that contradictory statement, and I'm supposed to be wrong about something? If M-Theory has been destroyed, then what faith could you possibly have in it?

Once again, when we have hard evidence from reality, faith is superfluous. When we don't, faith is ridiculous.

[The Dagda]

Oh shut up you clown.

You're incoherent babbling is annoying.

I can have faith in a hypothesis if I want, that is what string theory is. Now seriously get over yourself.

Are giving me my opinion now?

[The Dagda]

Guys, this topic seems to be heating up again, and on the verge of getting a tad personal at times...

(not quite over the line yet...)

I thought, with a certain poster gone to that great String in the sky, we might get back to purely attacking arguments...

Let's reduce the temperature a little, eh...

That's fine by me, it depends whether this self confessed clown wants to stop talking shit at me in lieu of an argument.

Obviously he doesn't, sorry.

Nope he just keeps going and going with this shit like some deranged duracel bunny. Not content with being wrong he wants to prove how wrong he can be by dictating peoples opinions and beliefs to them.

[hackenslash]

I've dictated fuck all. I simply pointed out the contradiction in your own statements. You also haven't pointed out just what I was wrong about. Whenever you're ready...

[The Dagda]

An going and going and going.

the troll is getting angry.

It is a contradiction to have faith in something for which you have no empirical evidence?

[Tigger]

JimC's little reminder was that of a moderator suggesting the angst was toned down. It seems to be getting ignored.

So is this another one, but in blue: tone it down please and no more personal insults. We have a play nice rule here, and it's being ignored.

The rules are here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449

[Twiglet]

I'm a great believer in String theory

it has been destroyed so many times.

Cognitive dissonance?

Belief is a faith based object. So no.

Voting yes.

String theory, a theory is search of a reality to describe, and no evidence that I'm aware of suggests it's this one. Still a theory though

No it isn't there's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

To begin with, the poll asks whether it's a theory, and doesn't make the distinction.

As for it "not being a scientific theory", I guess all those maths and physics departments which offered the subject, all those research fellows, all that effort was pursuing pop-science, heh. I am being sarcastic, by the way.

[hackenslash]

the troll is getting angry.

Oooh, another who can apparently ascertain somebody's emotional state from a few lines of text.

It is a contradiction to have faith in something for which you have no empirical evidence?

No, but it is a contradiction to have faith in something that, based on your own assertion, has been destroyed.

[Anonymous]

No it isn't there is no philosophical argument of Gods existence, but faith is not cognitive dissonance. I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow despite having no reason to believe it to be true. Are you going to tell me that faith is misplaced too? I have faith there are aliens on other planets, is that cognitive dissonance?

Philosophy 101, learn it and shut the hell up. You annoying little troll.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.[1]

The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. However, atheists and agnostics consider the term to be a euphemism for religious superstition.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by its detractors as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[5] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.[6] Informal usage can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief.

I am using my faith as a substitute for truth or absolute knowledge. How is that a contradiction when the future is not set in stone?

I don't make a claim String Theorists do and that is that String Theory is true or based on anything but faith. So what, so shoot me?

Your inability to justify your own devout faith in String Theory is none of my concern. I am capable of believing and knowing, those two things are mediated by philosophy not you, and not anyone else per se.

[edit] Criticisms of faith
Rationalists criticize religious faith arguing its irrationality, and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence and sometimes a strong belief in something even with evidence against it. Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

It might be irrational to have faith something might happen, although in this case I'd dispute it because of the maths. It could be true but until there is some evidence that assertion is logically one of faith not knowledge. Cognitive dissonance requires believing in two contradictory statements at once, such as I believe God exists, I do not believe the Christian god exists though. You could argue that such a suppossition is a contradiction in reasoning.

If you can show me how having faith in a future event that has been logically challenged that still could be true is even irrational let alone paradosical or just go away and troll someone else.

[hackenslash]

No it isn't there is no philosophical argument of Gods existence, but faith is not cognitive dissonance.

Stone me, this is like pulling teeth. You said that you were a believer in string theory. You then said that it had been destroyed. Now I don't know what destroyed mght mean in your world with regard to a scientific theory, but where I come from, that would tend to suggest that it had been falsified. Therein lies the dissonance.

I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow despite having no reason to believe it to be true.

Faith is irrelevant in this regard, becaus the preponderance of evidence tells us that the sun will come up tomorrow (actually, it won't. The sun rising and setting is an illusion).

Are you going to tell me that faith is misplaced too?

No, I'm going to tell you that faith is not required. It's superfluous.

I have faith there are aliens on other planets, is that cognitive dissonance?

No, that would be faith, and it would still be misplaced. In this case, the more sound position would be to say that you accept that it is unlikely that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe, and this would not be faith position because, once again, the preponderance of evidence supports it. In fact, we can even assign it a probability, namely 1.

Philosophy 101, learn it and shut the hell up.

Why would I wish to learn the tenets of finding out the colour of one's belly-button lint? That which is useful from philosophy, I have already gleaned. The rest is of little utility.

You annoying little troll.

Is insults all you have? You will note that at no point have I personalised any response to you in this manner. Does it make you feel better?

And you still haven't told us where I was wrong. Still waiting for that.

[Anonymous]

No it isn't there is no philosophical argument of Gods existence, but faith is not cognitive dissonance.

Stone me, this is like pulling teeth. You said that you were a believer in string theory. You then said that it had been destroyed. Now I don't know what destroyed mght mean in your world with regard to a scientific theory, but where I come from, that would tend to suggest that it had been falsified. Therein lies the dissonance.

I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow despite having no reason to believe it to be true.

Faith is irrelevant in this regard, becaus the preponderance of evidence tells us that the sun will come up tomorrow (actually, it won't. The sun rising and setting is an illusion).

Are you going to tell me that faith is misplaced too?

No, I'm going to tell you that faith is not required. It's superfluous.

I have faith there are aliens on other planets, is that cognitive dissonance?

No, that would be faith, and it would still be misplaced. In this case, the more sound position would be to say that you accept that it is unlikely that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe, and this would not be faith position because, once again, the preponderance of evidence supports it. In fact, we can even assign it a probability, namely 1.

Philosophy 101, learn it and shut the hell up.

Why would I wish to learn the tenets of finding out the colour of one's belly-button lint? That which is useful from philosophy, I have already gleaned. The rest is of little utility.

You annoying little troll.

Is insults all you have? You will note that at no point have I personalised any response to you in this manner. Does it make you feel better?

And you still haven't told us where I was wrong. Still waiting for that.

I said it had been destroyed many times, Monseir Le Clown. Obviously the implication was that it had been defeated but not terminated. Now can you take your repetative buffoonary to someone who gives a fuck.

In philosophical terms it had been shown to be flawed, so it merely restated its objectives. And argument can be won or lost but an opinion or faith based statement can never be so defeated without evidence, that is the fucking point.

the probability of life existing elsewhere in the Universe is not 1? What reality do you live in?

You don't even understand the basics of logical argument, you appear to be so far up your own arse that you can see the belly button lint from the inside.

[FBM]

MOD NOTE:

Ninjasocks, you have twice told another member to shut up, escalating to "shut the hell up" on the second occasion, violating the 'play nice' policy, and now you've added a personal attack. Consider this to be your reminder to play nice and refrain from personal attacks. Everyone, please relax a bit and try not to get personal with a rational debate. Thanks.

END MOD NOTE

[The Dagda]

MOD NOTE:

Ninjasocks, you have twice told another member to shut the hell up, violating the 'play nice' policy, and now you've added a personal attack. Consider this to be your reminder to play nice and refrain from personal attacks. Everyone, please relax a bit and try not to get personal with a rational debate. Thanks.

END MOD NOTE

If he continues to troll me I will continue to respond. What are you going to do about it? Is a better question, tell him to shut the fuck up and stop talking utter shit at me while you're fucking at it why don't you.

He said he was an internet clown, so I am calling him that, how is that an ad hominem? If I said i was a gardener and someone called me a gardener would that be an ad hominem?

Play nice my fucking arse you have no problem indulgiung this fucking clown.

[FBM]

MOD NOTE:

Ninjasocks, you have twice told another member to shut the hell up, violating the 'play nice' policy, and now you've added a personal attack. Consider this to be your reminder to play nice and refrain from personal attacks. Everyone, please relax a bit and try not to get personal with a rational debate. Thanks.

END MOD NOTE

If he continues to troll me I will continue to respond. What are you going to do about it? Is a better question, tell him to shut the fuck up and stop talking utter shit at me while you're fucking at it why don't you.

People are free to post ideas that you consider to be "utter shit". No one is free to resort to personal attacks. Tigger posted a link to the rules above. Please have a look at them. You've had a reminder now. I hope that's the end of it.

He said he was an internet clown, so I am calling him that, how is that an ad hominem? If I said i was a gardener and someone called me a gardener would that be an ad hominem?

Play nice my fucking arse you have no problem indulgiung this fucking clown.

"Internet clown" are not the words you used. He will be indulged as long as he doesn't violate a rule, as you are doing. Please. Let it go and get back to the rational part of the discussion. We would all appreciate it.

[The Dagda]

MOD NOTE:

Ninjasocks, you have twice told another member to shut the hell up, violating the 'play nice' policy, and now you've added a personal attack. Consider this to be your reminder to play nice and refrain from personal attacks. Everyone, please relax a bit and try not to get personal with a rational debate. Thanks.

END MOD NOTE

If he continues to troll me I will continue to respond. What are you going to do about it? Is a better question, tell him to shut the fuck up and stop talking utter shit at me while you're fucking at it why don't you.

People are free to post ideas that you consider to be "utter shit". No one is free to resort to personal attacks. Tigger posted a link to the rules above. Please have a look at them. You've had a reminder now. I hope that's the end of it.

No it isn't. I want to know what you are going to do about this troll, not about me?

I've had a fucking reminder of what? That you are taking his side because he's a fucking clown. Yeah whatever. Why should I take you seriously, you aren't even doing your job.

So you agree with this guy that faith based assertions are paradoxical. Oh please.