Sriram,
We accept x rays as a fact simply because we have seen x ray films of our bones.
No we don’t. We accept the fact of X-rays for a variety of reasons – there’s a lot more than “faith” in the images to go on.
If we hadn't, we would have to go on faith.
No we wouldn’t if we had reason and logic to go on too.
We accept cosmic rays, gamma rays, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, 11 dimensions etc. simply on faith....because we trust scientists. They could actually be wrong on many of this.
Wrong again. Some of these things have evidence to support them but in any case when there isn’t evidence we “accept” them only as conjectures and hypotheses, not as facts.
This isn’t difficult.
My point is simple.
And wrong.
Evidence and proof of objective reality isn't as simple as we think.
Who’s “we”?
Just because people demand proof or evidence does not mean it can be produced. Can anyone produce proof that the earth is going around the sun? Can we be taken into space and shown the earth orbiting the sun? Can it be proved beyond doubt that we landed on the moon (there are skeptics!)? No....it can't be done. But we all accept it as fact largely on faith.
I explained in my last reply to you why this is wrong (your going nuclear problem). Why have you just ignored the explanation and repeated the mistake?
Similarly, it is not always possible to prove or provide evidence for our experiences.
“Our experiences” are just that – experiences. If you want to rely on them for the
explanations for the phenomena we experience though then you need reason and evidence. The alternative of guessing (or, as you would call it, “faith”) is worthless for that purpose.
Most of you tend to think that 'experiences' automatically mean imaginative, delusional, wishful thinking.
Straw man. Who thinks that? No-one here that I can see. Experiences are real enough, The problem comes when you use faith for the explanatory narratives
for those experiences.
That is not necessarily so. 'Experiences' can be real and can provide a window into another aspect of reality.
No-one says that “experiences” aren’t real. What’s actually said is that when you introduce faith to explain those experiences then you have no means to know whether you’ve found “another aspect of reality” or just made a wrong guess.
That’s your problem here.
Incidentally, I just explained why your blind/non-conceptualising person would be right to reject the unqualified assertion “light”. As you just ignored it, do you now understand where you went wrong there?