Google says,
"you need to see something before you can accept that it really exists or occurs."
What is you opinion on the above quote as a scientist/researcher/teacher?
Regards
Mahamad Nabab Alam
An interesting approach to the quote "seeing is believing"! Seeing is not believing. Doing is believing!
It is worth to read! The story is an experience from India, but it is applicable everywhere.
"Oh, the husbands of the world; listen and listen carefully. Seeing is not believing. I was seeing my wife working in the kitchen since three decades, but never valued her labour, as I am now doing. In fact, doing is believing. Let us appreciate the efforts of our better half, more so, if she is managing both her job and home. I salute the working woman."
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/musings/doing-is-believing/230991.html
I do not agree with this quote "seeing is believing" as there are many things we can not see ourselves but they do exist.
Seeing Is Believing!
"Seeing is believing is an idiom first recorded in this form in 1639 that means "only physical or concrete evidence is convincing". It is the essence of St. Thomas's claim to Jesus Christ, to which the latter responded that there were those who had not seen but believed. It leads to a sophistry that "seen evidence" can be easily and correctly interpreted, when in fact, interpretation may be difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Is_Believing
It's an old adage but I believe in a God I cannot see and thru the eyes of faith and guided by the unseen Holy Spirit, I know that this God exists.
Many thanks,
Debra
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Knowledge, may it be said, is higher than magic and is more to be sought. It is quite possible to see what is happening and yet not know what is forward, for while seeing is believing, it does not follow that either seeing or believing is knowing."
------ James Stephens
Dear @Hemanta has written in his fine thread: "It is said that seeing is believing. Physics says many things which can not actually be seen. In fact, about the first moon landing mission, there were serious doubts expressed. What really should we believe? Only those things which can be seen or felt? Or, are seeing and believing simply not related?"
For example, "TIME is one of the greatest invisibles !" - Rajat Pradhan
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_we_not_believe_what_can_not_be_seen
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
See, what "Martin Luther King, Jr." once said:
"Seeing is not always believing."
A blind person cannot see but it is true that he/she believes many a things without even seeing.
Thus "Seeing is believing" may not always be true!
Many a people pray to God for their well being but is it true that each and everyone of them have seen God?
Not always. It is not true in many occasions. Has anybody ever seen the god?. Many of us strongly believe that God exists as faith is a matter of belief.
PS. What do you see in the attached picture?
Believing is sometimes a matter of faith.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
- Stuart Chase
Dear all,
I totally disagree. Currently the scientific community maintains a consensus regarding dark matter and dark energy. It is estimated that the two make up more than 90% of the universe. And nobody has ever seen.
See:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.181301
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-012-1181-8
"Seeing is believing", do you agree with the quote?
If you can see, then you don't need to believe - because there is hard evidence before your eyes. Believing is for things we can't see / can't see yet whereby we need to apply our faith.
According to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle the truth can never be seen.
Generally people believe what the front scene is and fail to have a four d vision so seeing is believing. Only seers have a 3d vision.
A beautiful and thoughtful quote from Rumi: “Everyone sees the unseen in proportion to the clarity of his heart, and that depends upon how much he has polished it. Whoever has polished it more sees more - more unseen forms become manifest to him.”
If I would thrust my vision while watching a magician pulling a bird out of a hat, I would really believe in magic but I don't. I simply reason that there is something I do not see here and the whole thing is a good visual illusion. I am aware that I don't see everything and that it is very easy to create visual illusion and so I do not believe what I see in all circumstances. When I see a face in a clould, I do not believe that there is actually a face in the cloud because I know clould do not have face. When I see the sun rise, I do not believe that the sun in actually turning around me as it visually appear to be doing, no I interpret this rise as the earth rotating. It is not an illusion that the sun rise but its naive direct interpretation of what I visually observed that it actually turn around me is not the correct interpretation.
I think that is utter nonsense. For instance, "I exist" is a statement that presupposes the existence of something beyond the mere matter and chemicals that make up my body. This is a big issue in philosophy but an analogy that rings true for all of us. If I do exist - and I in the sense that I am a thing capable of reasoning and reflecting on reality beyond the realm of pure environmental determinism then everyone can know that statement is false.
Another good example is that while we have not "seen" the Big Bang we have very strong empirical evidence for it and thus it is eminently reasonable to believe it. Google sounds like they've moved away from their general leftist viewpoint and jumped right into a pure existentialist view.
There are times people see and do not believe and vice versa. "Seeing is believing" seems to have a reasonable basis. But nothing more.
I have serious doubts for the validity of this phrase.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You can't see the future, yet you know it will come; you can't see the air, yet you continue to breathe. - Claire London
Dear Mahamad :
I don't think so. Sometimes what you see is true or real and sometimes is not. Structure of reality is rarely directly visible. I tend to "believe" --or to take as valid-- what seems clear to reason --including "empirical data"-, perhaps adding occasionally a bit of intuition.
I think, it's required in all fields of science."Romanticist, theorist, practitioner is a classical scholar"(E.Ramensky).Although for a creative personality it's better to be a dreamer."If I can dream" Elvis Presley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZIDRssG8h4
In my previous post I showed many cases I do not believe what I see. IN this post I would like to show how that ''seeing'' is not really ''seeing'' but "believing". WHat is impinging on our retinas are projected images of various part of the scene. What your vision system interpret this information is not this information but a belief, what you see, about this information. There are many instances such when you look at a necker cube where what is projected onto your retinas do not change but what you see change. Which means that your visual system change its belief about what is creating this pattern of light on your retina. So seing what is there is not interpretation free, it is a automated vision system belief and it is not always right. So beleiving in what we see is in fact a double believing: believing in the visual belief.
The proverb "Seeing is believing" should be relied upon only in the sense that seeing something by one's own eyes can give one better understanding than what one hears about it.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Seeing, feeling, thinking, believing - these are the stages of how we change our style on the outside and our self-image on the inside."
---- Stacy London
Believing is dependent on faith if we can't see then we apply our faith. If we can see, then we don't need to believe because it really happen in front of our eyes.
Dr. Tajudeen Abdul Hameed (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Tajudeen_Hameed) says the following:
Dear Mohammad --- what ever you see can be or will be deceiving and whatever you hear also can be and will be deceiving --- UNLESS you thoroughly investigate and analyze and reason out the answer --- you cannot know the real truth --- this is the real LAW of believing the truth. Thanks
Dear Mahamad
I don't believe in the quote "Seeing is Believing" as many times i have observed things are entirely different as what is perceived by us.We should not believe in anything without proper investigation and analyzing the facts.
Dear Mahamad.
I thank you for this beautiful questions and all others for their answers.
With best wishes,
Subir.
Dear all:
Why talk about belief and not about knowledge? We are scientists here, and there is a great difference between a "hunch" and a "fact". Why this interest in belief? We should not believe in knowledge: we should know knowledge, so to say.
Best regards, Lilliana
Mahamad Nabab Alam
Seeing is Believing is an idea which comes out from Positivist approach. I can share one of my life experience with my RG family. I went to Amarkantak, a place on mountain of Mahakal in the Central Plateau of India. It is the birth place of Narmada which flows along a rift valley towards the Arabian Sea. Its direction is an exception to the East and north flowing rivers of the region which goes to either the valley of Ganges to the North or the Bay of Bengal to the East. Amarkantak is the birth place of another river Sonbhadra, an important right bank tributary of the river Ganges which is the lifeline of the Great Northern Plains. In Amarkantak local people told us the that Mother Narmada is the daughter of the Lord Shiva and Mother Ganga, (river Ganges) is one of the wives of Lord Shiva. Thus Devi (Goddess) Ganga becomes the step mother of Devi (Godess) Narmada. Narmada is angry with her step mother, so she did not join to the Valley of Ganga and flowed to the opposite direction. The religious interpretation of the geographical fact attracted our attention. In addition the people told us that Amarkantaka is the holy place of Lord Shiva and in the innumerable temples of Amarkantak, the idol of shiva were not built by any human being, but all the idols had come out from the underground world (i.e. “Patal” in Hindu mythology). We the surveyors cum tourists did not believe in the myth as we were rational people enriched with scientific knowledge. But to our surprise, on visit to a temple, we discovered that, the idol of Lord Shiva (Shiva Linga) was actually a type of vertical igneous intrusion called Dyke which came out due to erosion.
Another fact we found that the idol was wet by water and the place is also marshy. We remembered that the local people said that, Step Mother Ganga Comes in the month of Shravana to meet Narmada. During field survey, we observed that in the dug wells the level of ground water is very near the earth’s surface. Now we realized that, in the month of Shravana i.e. in the rainy season the ground water overflows and comes out through the cracks along the dyke.
People see the water coming out and believe the Ganga is coming. We saw the water and believed in the theory of ground water overflow. If any Geologist or hydrologist will see it they will believe in any further theory. Thus each of us see the same thing, but perceives different ideas. Those ideas become our truth. So the truths become different. But who will answer that which seeing /believing is actually correct!
Regards
Sarada Mandal
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"You need to put what you learn into practice and do it over and over again until it's a habit. I always say, 'Seeing is not believing. Doing is believing.' There is a lot to learn about fitness, nutrition and emotions, but once you do, you can master them instead of them mastering you."
----- Brett Hoebel
An interesting approach to the quote "seeing is believing"! Seeing is not believing. Doing is believing!
It is worth to read! The story is an experience from India, but it is applicable everywhere.
"Oh, the husbands of the world; listen and listen carefully. Seeing is not believing. I was seeing my wife working in the kitchen since three decades, but never valued her labour, as I am now doing. In fact, doing is believing. Let us appreciate the efforts of our better half, more so, if she is managing both her job and home. I salute the working woman."
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/musings/doing-is-believing/230991.html
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When we do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that we have evidence that it doesn't exist.
It is fact that current spearhead science and culture is highly and increasingly counter-intuitive. We deal with behaviours, problem and systems that we truly do not literally see. Natural perception seems to remain behind and its importance for knowledge and life.
Physics is very separated from common sense. Maybee we should demand to "see" before we accept the esoteric theories.
As resurrected Jesus said to the apostles: "Happy lucky whom believe and have not seen" (to resurrected Jesus, as it occurred to St. Thomas in the first apparition of Jesus to the apostles without Thomas). But Jesus appeared to St. Thomas a week after and he said to Jesus: "Lord mine and God mine".
Believe in any thing could be dangerous, but do not believe in the word of ten apostles who saw to resurrected Jesus is sad.
“Almost nothing need be said when you have eyes.”
― Tarjei Vesaas, The Boat in the Evening
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
― Meister Eckhart, Sermons of Meister Eckhart
This idiom is as old as 1640's --- this it self is the testimony.
The statement implies that it is not prudent to accept the truth of something unless we see/visualize it. Thus expressing concern for verification. However, it is not possible to see with our eyes everything that happens or everything that is reported to have happened. Most of the times a system ( what ever it be) has to run on faith and mutual belief. Therefore, according to me, this idiom is apt in case of scientific inventions, case study reports and locations where visualization is a must.
Dear Jayaram sir
Your answer to this question is really very impressive. I think you have reached to a depth of this question in answering.
Also, there are many such impressive answer to this question.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
If all you were left believing was what you were seeing, it'd be nothing but desperate. To have hope, you're going to have to imagine that there's something behind the curtain. Jakob Dylan
Love is blind only to the eyes. The heart sees everything clearly.
"The eyes see what the heart loves. If the heart loves
God and is single in this devotion, then the eyes will
see God whether others see Him or not." -Warren Wiersbe.
For the outer sense alone perceives visible things and the eye of the heart alone sees the invisible. -Richard of Saint-Victor.
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is
invisible to the eye. -Antoine De Saint-Exupery.
Sensation and Perception processes can fool us very easily. Seeing might be believing, but the question is... what are we really seeing? Mental representations and reality are not the same. But then again... what is reality? Can it be the same for everyone of us? I most definitely don`t think so.
“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.”
― Wayne W. Dyer
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.”
― Aldous Huxley
Seeing Is Believing, Or Is It?
"How many times have you heard the saying "Seeing Is Believing"? In other words, when I've seen it, I will then believe in it!
The truth is that most people are conditioned from an early age to buy into this thought and then we act as if it were true.
What if, the old saying is upside down, so instead of "Seeing Is Believing" it would be "You need to Believe before you See It"..."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/seeing-believing-jim-rees?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291464545894893%2CVSRPtargetId%3A8732631404378565228%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name
In today’s context , ‘ seeing and ascertaining is believing ‘.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
“It’s often been said that “seeing is believing”, but in many cases, the reverse is also true. Believing results in seeing.”
― Donald L. Hicks, Look into the stillness
Sometimes, it is more convincing than hearing something from someone, but appearances can also be deceiving, so you have to do some further examination before you believe everything you see.
Many thanks,
Debra
Dear Mahamad:
"Seeing is believing", taken literally, implies a form of "naive realism" that usually leads us to wrong ideas about reality. For millennia, humans saw the Sun moving in the sky and conclude what is "obvious" to the eyes: the Sun moves and the Earth stands still. The deep structure of reality is normally beyond perception, as quantum mechanics clearly shows.
I disagree with the quote since not everything is perceived by vision, electromagnetic waves are not visible for us, but they really exist., etc.
"One eye-witness weighs more than ten hear-says: Seeing is believing all the world over"
--- Plautus
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
You must understand that seeing is believing, but also know that believing is seeing.
---- Denis Waitley
Fine research paper by my friend @Stephen!
MATHEMATICAL LOGIC, TEMPORAL KNOWLEDGE A… CAUSATION!
Mathematics is a precise mental tool to capture working elements (Gestalt) of reality and a means of optimal rationalization, in technical terms. No other method and product of the human mind can offer such a conversion and condensation of information into the temporality of knowledge. The exact methodical distinction between illusionary and real elements of the physical world is much more than an intellectual beauty contest, it is the fundamental question to discover the hidden harmony in the mystery of a chaotic material world. Such deep cognitive reflections lead inevitably to the enigma and puzzle of teleological and causal attributions of human existence; mathematics is a humanistic scientific discipline which can help us to decipher the meaning of our pilgrimage of life, if we allow for a logical balance of passion and reason...
Article MA-THEMATICAL LOGIC, TEMPORAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE ARROW OF CAUSATION
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
---- Saint Augustine
Yes, I agree, also doing is believing in the case of an experiment.
Seeing is believing is an idiom first recorded in this form in 1639[1] that means "only physical or concrete evidence is convincing". It is the essence of St. Thomas's claim to Jesus Christ, to which the latter responded that there were those who had not seen but believed. It leads to a sophistry that "seen evidence" can be easily and correctly interpreted, when in fact, interpretation may be difficult.
Seeing is Believing may refer to:
"Seeing is Believing" (Code Lyoko episode)
UFOs: Seeing is Believing, UFO documentary film
Seeing is Believing (novel), a 1941 mystery novel by John Dickson Carr writing as "Carter Dickson"
"Seeing is Believing" (song) a song by Andrew Lloyd Webber from Aspects of Love
Seeing is Believing (organization), a partnership for the prevention of blindness to tackle avoidable blindness
Seeing Is Believing: Handicams, Human Rights and the News, a 2002 Canadian documentary film
Seeing is Believing (film)', a 1934 British film
Seeing is Believing (film) is an upcoming film about Bobby Darin.
Seeing is Believing (album), an album by German singer Xavier Naidoo
Dear Ali,
You answer to this thread is really impressive. Thank you so much for providing interesting input to this discussion.
Not necessarily true.Some believe and others do not. Magicians display sensationally astonishing show, including levitation to their audiences and only naive ones believe them, but others know it is a trick of experts doing an entertainment of our senses. Seeing is a sensual activity which has to be verified by reason and empirical test.
Dear Colleague Subir Bandyopadhyay,
I am a Christian.
God, I've never seen, but I believe it really exists.
It does not matter to me, if you call really GOD or JEHOVAH or ALLAH or other name. I had occasion, in India, in Albania, in Europe, in other countries, to know and to do FRIENDSHIP with many other colleagues from different RELIGION (Hindus, Mohammedans, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Palestinians, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on. With many them when they invited me to participate in some of their RELIGIOUS CEREMONY, I've always gone, I participated with HONOR and RESPECT. So it happened also in 1986 Kampur (India) before and after the Conference END Conference (for Thanksgiving).
In conclusion I want to assert:
At school they were taught the History of Egypt, the Assyrian-Babylonian people, the Greeks, the Romans and the Roman Empire. We have never seen them, but we believe. As evidence that there have been, there are the Archaeological Testimonials in Egypt (the Pyramids), in Rome - all building structures of ancient Rome + COLISEUM. Then I make You a Question ????
If Jesus Christ seems to have lived in the same period of the 'Roman Empire (which is undoubtedly existed - evidence is the Colosseum), because I believe that the Roman Empire existed and Jesus Christ NO ???
Maybe I'm stupid or gullible but you certainly know that many GREAT SCIENTISTS in the past were beginning ATHEISTS or unbelievers, then believed in God.
As Believers we are a few Billion People, maybe we ALL gullible ???
However, as I wrote earlier, it is IMPORTANT TO RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS possible, with a MUTUAL respect.
Sorry for the very long speech.
giuseppe daurelio
The world will be a better place to live in if we take existentialism andfunctionalist theories literally
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
I rarely believe anything, because at the time of believing I am not really there to believe.
---- Gertrude Stein American Author
One eye-witness weighs more than ten hearsays — Seeing is believing all the world over.
--- Plautus
No. I don't agree with this saying. There is 'Roshomon effect'. 'Roshomon' is a movie directed by Akiro Kurosawa in late forties. Psychologists borrowed this term 'Roshomon effect;' for different perspectives of the same situation.
Dear @Ali hussien Amteghy, do not practice plagiarism! You must cite the resource that you have used, properly, copy/paste practice is very bad for academics! |Here is the resource and answer:
"Seeing is believing is an idiom first recorded in this form in 1639[1] that means "only physical or concrete evidence is convincing". It is the essence of St. Thomas's claim to Jesus Christ, to which the latter responded that there were those who had not seen but believed. It leads to a sophistry that "seen evidence" can be easily and correctly interpreted, when in fact, interpretation may be difficult.
Seeing is Believing may refer to:
"Seeing is Believing" (Code Lyoko episode)
UFOs: Seeing is Believing, UFO documentary film
Seeing is Believing (novel), a 1941 mystery novel by John Dickson Carr writing as "Carter Dickson"
"Seeing is Believing" (song) a song by Andrew Lloyd Webber from Aspects of Love
Seeing is Believing (organization), a partnership for the prevention of blindness to tackle avoidable blindness
Seeing Is Believing: Handicams, Human Rights and the News, a 2002 Canadian documentary film
Seeing is Believing (film)', a 1934 British film
Seeing is Believing (film) is an upcoming film about Bobby Darin.
Seeing is Believing (album), an album by German singer Xavier Naidoo"
You may refer to my answer dated May 20, 2016!!! See very first page of this thread!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Is_Believing
It is not really possible in some incidents, so I am not supporting the above statement
"Seeing is believing" is materialistic thought, but in many circumstances the confidence without seeing is necessary too. And the confidence could be inmaterial or without seeing things. For example, the confidence of a child in his mother is natural even when the child has not seen yet.
Right
thats just seeing before accepting and what to believe
Thank You
When I see plagiarism in scientific thread, then I believe that plagiarist has no academic honesty!
The Universe we are living in includes more than this Earth Planet. Of course we cannot see beyond that. But science has proven that this planet is one among millions of planets moons and other objects revolving within this galaxy, which we can hardly see. Even within this planet the human eye as a sensor has a very limited capacity, that does not exceed certain meters, or at best kilometer. If the naked eye cannot see things beyond that capacity, that does not prove non-existence of them.
Therefore the my understanding is that by limiting our belief to what we see or what is empirical, we are in fact reducing our mental abilities to the minimum.
If you read a scientific publication, do you 'see' or 'believe' (e.g. what is written)?
Hazim: How do you know a eye witness is indeed a eye witness?
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Marcel: you tell me or you can ask Plautus if you can make an appointment with him!!!
No, I am just joking, One Eye can witness "The true thing" but 10 hearsays might not witness the true thing because it is just hearing !!!
Sometimes (or perhaps many times) ''Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.''
--Albert Einstein
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Teacher Education