[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by subversion

The most important thing to know about psychology is that the only way the mind knows anything is by what it is able to believe. As such all knowledges and truths are merely simple beliefs. In this manner scientists are kidding themselves to think that their knowledge is not based on belief. Knowledge is belief; there is no arguing the fact.

You are correct in that science is a form of religion which adheres to a set of precepts which are considered inviolate and unapproachable. I will attempt to define what these precepts are and contest them:

1) If many individuals experience the same thing, in a consistent and reproducible way, there is an underlying reality to that experience.

If everyone rubs their eyes, and sees little dancing white lights (which anyone can do), you can see them dancing around. Now if we did not have the notion of the physical body affecting perception, we would have to look externally to find an explanation. So it may be suggested that these "lumens" come into our eyelid when we rub them, perhaps because of the heat. This seems reasonable, but is clearly wrong with our "extra knowledge" that the physical body can itself create sensation. But how much of science is like this- reasonable and correct, but ultimately wrong because we are missing the extra knowledge?

2) If a set of foundational assumptions are taken to be true and logical deductions made from these assumptions, then the later stages of logical deduction are correct.

Whitehead attempted to formalize mathematics, and thus prove all of mathematical thought using logical deduction. He succeeded, but only for a small branch of mathematics. Thus, even if this second assumption is true, there may be vast tracts of mathematics which are false due to an overlooked error in the deductive process, which is "assumed to be obviously true" but is not in fact. If the assumptions turn out to be wrong (which they may well be for physical law) then this opens a whole new can of whoop-ass on our perception of the physical world. Finally, can we really trust the deductive process as a way at arriving at truth? Is it not really a way of arriving at a "human acceptable" truth, which may not have a bearing on reality after all?

3) There is an underlying consistency to reality which can be apprehended.

It certainly is nice to believe in a consistent reality- I mean after all- it must be, right? If it were inconsistent, it would show up as "bugs" in life, or as incomprehensible things. Also, it can be apprehended. You can imagine walking up to someone who was considered quite stupid, and asking them questions about the world. You might be able to easily trap them in an inconsistency (I had a friend who would do this to me, and actually it is quite annoying but also entertaining if you can get over your pride). At this point when you trap them in an inconsistency- they always admit they are wrong somewhere, to themselves, or secretly, or else abandon the consistency of the world. I have seen many abandon the consistency of the world, often in meetings at my various jobs, and it always makes me chuckle (on the inside, on the outside I just nod). But is the world actually consistent? It always seems like inconsistency is due to logical error, mistaken thinking, or stupidity- but is this true? What if it actually is inconsistent?