A thread to discuss My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and the tie-in media.
All of the usual forum rules
apply. In addition, please remember that the thread is discussing a kids' show, and it's primarily focused on the work itself, not the fanfic — in particular, we don't want to see lewdness creeping in.
Edited by Mrph1 on Aug 26th 2024 at 10:24:26 AM
Like I said, Personal Dictionary. And I've seen quite a few people use it like that.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlaySo I just finished watching the Extra Credits video, and while it's technically true, it's not really meaningful. It's mostly just stating the obvious, and possibly missing the point.
And for what it's worth Einstein was kind of right. There are deterministic models of Qunatum Physics.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayThank you! It's a Beserk Button for me too! Faith is about deciding to believe (or believe in) something. It's accuracy and the amount of evidence already accumulated is irrelevent. Faith is something necessary to actually do anything. Sitting down on a chair without quintuple checking each individual screw is an act of faith (except that if you quintuple checked, it would still be an act of faith as you could have theoretically hextuple checked etc).
The thing is that if you define faith that broadly, it isn't really a useful concept to discuss. Things are defined as much by what they are not as what they are.
Or to paraphrase Syndrome, when everything is faith, nothing is.
edited 29th Mar '14 9:30:32 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayShould these be our sane pony thread posts? Or maybe the Scientific Pony Thread posts.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectSo what do you define faith as, then?
And I kind of do think that it defined as having postulates that cannot be proven within the system, but are believed to be true in order to define the system, is definitely a useful topic to discuss.
Or at least, I imagine it must be; so much mathematical theory has gone into looking at that thought.
edited 29th Mar '14 9:36:53 PM by Enlong
I have a message from another time...What is the point of that? Seriously, what is the point of that? JT didn't mean that. He meant that there is more than one kind of faith, trust in a person based on what you know about them. It can overlap with the other kind of faith(belief in a baseless assumption) if you don't know that much about them, but it doesn't have to.
In short, JT meant that there is a version of faith that can have evidence behind it. What you apparently assert is that nothing has enough evidence to remove it from faith.
That is completely meaningless. Are you saying that knowing 2 + 2 = 4 is an act of faith? How? Because I have to "have faith" in my senses when I put two things next to some other two things? How does merely assuming that prove anything? Why shouldn't I trust that two things next to two other things mean four things? Unless I'm high or something, not trusting would be a baseless assumption. In other words, thinking that this is an act of faith is an act of faith in itself. You are descending into serious pseudo-philosophical bullshit here, you know.
edited 29th Mar '14 9:41:25 PM by Luminosity
![]() |
Sheesh, all I'm saying is this: "faith" is not inherently irrational or without evidence. You can have reasons for having faith in something. My only point was that it's incorrect to equate having faith in something or someone with believing for no reason. I wasn't talking about axiomatic knowledge or anything like that, just noting that having reasons for believing something to be the case doesn't disqualify that belief from being faith.
Also that the term is so nebulous that discussing it is kinda pointless.
So let's just drop it before it gets any more heated. Be distracted.
And now I'm going to bed for real.
Reaction Image Repository


I don't see how the video makes a case for science being based on faith. Take that whole bit on Pythagoras and the fifth postulate. About how scientist had faith that it was true, but then found out, no it wasn't.
Except yes it WAS true. It is perfectly valid, and completely provably true. But as said, only applies when talking about a two dimensional plane. It wasn't faith in it being true, it was proving it as being a fact and true. That it did not apply to curved or other three dimensional areas doesn't make it any less true, simply limited to only being true for two-dimensional plane. No faith needed, it was all provable fact.
And then about how we needed faith that the new postulates chosen to replace them were true, again, no, it wasn't faith that they were true, it was proving to ourselves they were true. Proving them, to the best of our ability, to be true. While yes, knowing that it was possible our ability to test them was hampered by some information we did not have.
So yeah I don't see how any of that is based on faith.
and " it comes with a pre-conditioned idea" yeah, that applies to ALL words, period. The "pre-concieved idea" of what it is, is called the definition. Without having that, language and communication are impossible.