| HN Mirror

mcphage 1273 days ago

> in this case they mean the same thing

Blind faith implies both lack of evidence ("blind"), and rigid loyalty to a specific idea ("faith"). Common sense implies neither of them.

https://search.brave.com/search?q=definition+of+faith&source...

I see you didn't watch the youtube video I linked

> Faith

> 1. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.

> 2. Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.

...

> 5. Intuitive belief.

We have a hypothesis that the penis _evolved_ due to it's ability to scoop out semen. A part of that hypothesis is that this is why longer penises evolved, to place semen in places that cannot be scooped out by other men.

But another explanation for larger penises is that women find them more attractive and pleasurable and therefore it increased your chance of mating.

Another would be that larger penises are statistically more likely to get a woman pregnant in general, with or without a bulbous head.

But here's one for you. The original hypothesis about the penis head came from an experiment in which they found that a single thrust could potentially pull out 90% of a competitors semen. We won't discuss the logistics (they didn't use real people), we'll have _blind faith_ that the experimenters ensured it was realistic.

Men ejaculate in spurts over a time period that is larger than what it takes to thrust a single time. This would imply the penis head also removes it's own sperm quite often.

---

The point here is that

1. We don't know, and 2. We can't know without actually documenting the process.

This sub-thread was brought about by someone saying "how do we know this is true", and the answer is, we can't know, therefore we take it on blind faith.

If you're offended by the phrase blind faith, use whatever phrase you like. But while you're doing that, please watch that youtube video. It will help you better understand why it's more useful to discuss the underlying idea than to discuss if we should be using word X or word Y.

mcphage 1272 days ago

> by someone saying "how do we know this is true", and the answer is, we can't know, therefore we take it on blind faith.

If you're talking about evolution in general, then it makes a large number of predictions about the way things are, that have borne out.

If you're talking about penises scooping out semen, the answer is we can't know, therefore we take it on faith—the answer is we don't know, and so it's one of several hypotheses—none of which are mutually exclusive. Nobody is (or should be, at least) taking it on faith, because nobody should be asserting it as definitely true.

I'm stepping out of this conversation. You insist on arguing about words despite my repeated requests for you to watch the video.

It is very telling that you repeatedly use the phrase "blind faith", but you left off the "blind" when presenting definitions.

I would be interested to see how you think this short video supports the claim you are making here, as it does not mention evolution, common sense or faith, and is ostensibly about how little knowledge one gains just by learning the name of a thing.

You don't understand how pointing out the names of things isn't the important property of a thing would be relevant in a discussion with someone who is arguing it should be called X instead of Y?

That's on you, brother.

No, the claims made in the video you linked to do not show that, as you put it, "in this case, 'common sense' and 'blind faith' mean the same thing." Nor does your reply to mcphage.

correct, the video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important.

I choose to call it blind faith and the other poster prefers to call it common sense. If a 3rd person wanted to call it guacamole I'd be onboard.

The other poster insists on arguing about the name rather than discussing the interesting part, which is underlying idea. They want to do this based upon the whole "science vs religion" thing that was boring even back in the 90's when it was raging.

I have no interest in it and so I've stepped out of that conversation. Let someone else take up a stupid, useless, argument.

> The video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important.

Firstly, this is a misreading of the video. The absurdity of this position can be seen from extending your example through replacing every noun in your comments by "guacamole".

Secondly, "blind" is an adjective, and one that you use at every opportunity (except where you are looking up definitions - by the way, isn't looking up definitions an odd preoccupation for someone who doesn't see anything of importance in what you call something?) It is well-known that you cannot outright prove anything about the natural world by induction, but to lump everything that is not proven into the category of specifically blind faith ignores the epistemic value of evidence and just leads to what you call a stupid, useless, argument.