Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[gnostic]

Of these four, only Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences adhere to Methodological Naturalism. And only these two adhere to standards of Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

Ah you were talking about all kinds of sciences like home science and the science of marketing etc etc. I had a lecturer who was a designated Marketing Scientist. Then you get data science which is a highly paid job.

Ah, no. That's not what I am saying.

Marketing science would fall under economics, which would fall under the classification of SOCIAL SCIENCES.

The methodology of Social Sciences seek evidence & data differently to sciences of Natural Sciences. None of the disciplines or sciences of Social Sciences required to be falsifiable, nor tested in the same manner as that of experimental scientists would do things.

Natural Sciences only include physics, chemistry, Earth sciences (eg geology, tectonic plates, atmosphere, etc), astronomy and Life Sciences...hence the studies of nature, as to attempting to understand WHAT the natural phenomena are, and HOW do they work (thus the mechanisms).

Social Sciences, on the other hand, relate to human conducts and social behaviors in the SOCIETIES.

Any sciences relating to human activities/practices (eg political science, economics, laws, etc), human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology, archaeology, etc) and human behaviour (eg psychology) in societies.

While Natural Sciences (and Physical Sciences) must conform to the requirements of FALSIFIABILITY & SCIENTIFIC METHOD as proposed in the Methodological Naturalism, none of the Social Science disciplines do. That's the different between Social and Natural sciences.

The other things, is that the results of Social Sciences relied on subjective evidence. For instance, psychologists relied on learning their patients' behaviour or emotions, to communicate what are wrong. Such revelation from a patient, as the patient's opinions matters, and an opinion is highly subjective.

Natural Sciences have to rely on evidence, not any one person's personal opinion. Opinion can often be biases.

That's why the Scientific Method rely on experiments, evidence & data, not on people's biased opinions...even scientist's opinion must be remove from tests.

 

[firedragon]

Marketing science would fall under economics

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

 

[gnostic]

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

It is not semantic.

Marketing research is about investigating what consumers may or may not buy, and how to make profit from whatever products they are trying to sell.

It is a fact that marketing related to business (thus business studies), economics and advertising (thus media studies) - all relating to human practices in social environment, and these 3 studies all fall under the Social Sciences category. Marketing researching isn't researching about nature - hence not Natural Sciences.

 

[firedragon]

Marketing science would fall under economics

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

It is not semantic.

Marketing research is about investigating what consumers may or may not buy, and how to make profit from whatever products they are trying to sell.

It is a fact that marketing related to business (thus business studies), economics and advertising (thus media studies) - all relating to human practices in social environment, and these 3 studies all fall under the Social Sciences category. Marketing researching isn't researching about nature - hence not Natural Sciences.

Cheers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

At least acknowledge the Methodological Naturalism of Basic sciences that require objective evidence and falsification of hypotheses and theories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agnostic, not atheist.

So you are just to ignore what I say, about me being agnostic, because you don’t care what I tell you about myself.

So you are going to continue the lie? Classy...

how about acknowledging what I tell you about myself, because as of now, you are just liar in my eyes.

Sorry.

Now it is your turn, so acknowledge that I am the Internet and the links I gave in the other thread are all written by me. That is the only way it makes sense.

 

[firedragon]

Marketing science would fall under economics

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

It is not semantic.

Marketing research is about investigating what consumers may or may not buy, and how to make profit from whatever products they are trying to sell.

It is a fact that marketing related to business (thus business studies), economics and advertising (thus media studies) - all relating to human practices in social environment, and these 3 studies all fall under the Social Sciences category. Marketing researching isn't researching about nature - hence not Natural Sciences.

Cheers.

It is not semantic.

Marketing research is about investigating what consumers may or may not buy, and how to make profit from whatever products they are trying to sell.

It is a fact that marketing related to business (thus business studies), economics and advertising (thus media studies) - all relating to human practices in social environment, and these 3 studies all fall under the Social Sciences category. Marketing researching isn't researching about nature - hence not Natural Sciences.

Ciao.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry.

Now it is your turn, so acknowledge that I am the Internet and the links I gave in the other thread are all written by me. That is the only way it makes sense.

To put it very bluntly. From what I have experienced here, I wouldn't trust anything you write.

what I have seen (read) have been replies that are just misinformation, flawed logic and conspiracy theory…so you can believe whatever you like, but I don’t think you are reliable, when it come to knowledge or information.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To put it very bluntly. From what I have experienced here, I wouldn't trust anything you write.

what I have seen (read) have been replies that are just misinformation, flawed logic and conspiracy theory…so you can believe whatever you like, but I don’t think you are reliable, when it come to knowledge or information.

Well, you see. I control the Internet sites I link to. So I understand how you can't trust it.
I am this site:

Home

www.atheists.org

I full get how you reject it. I am everywhere on the Internet. In fact I am the Internet.

 

[shunyadragon]

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

Cheers.

Ciao.

This getting off subject. Marketing would Social Science, but not Economics. The reality is scientists are poor in promoting their work. They are too busy doing science.

It is best to deal with science as science and the nature of what is objective evidence in science. The reliability of science is not dependent on marketing.

 

[gnostic]

Well, you see. I control the Internet sites I link to. So I understand how you can't trust it.
I am this site:

Home

www.atheists.org

I full get how you reject it. I am everywhere on the Internet. In fact I am the Internet.

no, my experiences, I don’t trust anything you write, here at these forums.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

no, my experiences, I don’t trust anything you write, here at these forums.

Yeah, I get it. You don't even trust a link and dismiss it, because I link to a site. Get it.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, I get it. You don't even trust a link and dismiss it, because I link to a site. Get it.

i haven’t been to any of links you have given…it is you, what you wrote that I don’t think is reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

i haven’t been to any of links you have given…it is you, what you wrote that I don’t think is reliable.

Well, here is something I haven't actually written as me. I have copied it from a site. You can check that I haven't actually written it as me by following the link:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

Now if you then claim that I am lying and I haven't copied it, then okay. I accept that you believe I lie there.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Do Americans (I'll amend to "all Americans" here for the sake of ease and clarity) believe in God?

I polled myself, and tentatively concluded from my poll with sample size one that there indeed exists at least one American who believes that God does not exist,

Oh course, I used a hidden assumption that in fact I exist, which I am not convinced of, so there is still some margin for error.

Many staticiticians would accept my poll as conclusive, however, even if I don’t.

 

[Augustus]

While Natural Sciences (and Physical Sciences) must conform to the requirements of FALSIFIABILITY & SCIENTIFIC METHOD as proposed in the Methodological Naturalism, none of the Social Science disciplines do. That's the different between Social and Natural sciences.

Where do you get the idea that social sciences don’t use scientific methods and are not falsifiable?

(Also it is certainly debatable whether or not natural sciences must be falsifiable to be scientific, for example aspects of theoretical physics).

Social sciences are generally far less reliable in their outputs, but for completely different reasons.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where do you get the idea that social sciences don’t use scientific methods and are not falsifiable?

(Also it is certainly debatable whether or not natural sciences must be falsifiable to be scientific, for example aspects of theoretical physics).

Social sciences are generally far less reliable in their outputs, but for completely different reasons.

Just an aside. In German and Scandanavia wee have a 3rd version of overall sceince, which is in effect subjective. It is called by different names as humaities, cultural sciences, "spirit/mind/mental" sciences, human sciences.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Why do you think whether a person who understands and use science(s) or its respective field(s), or not - have to fall within the parameters of “atheism“ or ”theism”, or to any other religious-philosophical “-ism” types (eg monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, panentheism, pantheism, deism, agnosticism, etc)????

I have no idea where you are going with this, or even how it relates to my comparisons between two very specific cultures in one particular respect.

Like every other creationists here and elsewhere, you are confusing atheist with scientist, or atheism with science. Neither of them are synonymous to one another. You are generalising, BTP.

Actually, it is you who is generalizing.

BTW, what do you mean by “every other creationalist”?

Is this a reference to the creativity inherent in mathematics?

If so, it is a very creative method of making reference to it.

How did you go from a comparison between the culture of a particular RF member with another very specific culture, to a vast generalization that virtually ignores the two specific cultures being compared, and the specific cultural dimension being compared?

The poster who I was replying to knows the context, knows the two cultures being compared, and knows the aspect of the two cultures being compared, as this is not the first time we have discussed this.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea where you are going with this, or even how it relates to my comparisons between two very specific cultures in one particular respect.




Actually, it is you who is generalizing.

BTW, what do you mean by “every other creationalist”?

Is this a reference to the creativity inherent in mathematics?

If so, it is a very creative method of making reference to it.

How did you go from a comparison between the culture of a particular RF member with another very specific culture, to a vast generalization that virtually ignores the two specific cultures being compared, and the specific cultural dimension being compared?

The poster who I was replying to knows the context, knows the two cultures being compared, and knows the aspect of the two cultures being compared, as this is not the first time we have discussed this.

Upon re-reading my comment, it was not directed to the person I thought it was, so the last sentence does not necessarily apply, as my previous conversations on this topic were with another poster.

So there are three cultures in the mix, here, not just two.

But the rest of this comment stands.

Some cultures see their subjectivities as more objective in nature, and others less so.

 

[wellwisher]

This getting off subject. Marketing would Social Science, but not Economics. The reality is scientists are poor in promoting their work. They are too busy doing science.

It is best to deal with science as science and the nature of what is objective evidence in science. The reliability of science is not dependent on marketing.

Statistical modeling uses a margin of error, which adds subjectivity to the evidence. That type of evidence is not objective evidence, due to the fuzzy nature design of the data. One lab may find that coffee is good for you and another bad for you, based on their subjective margin of error. Whims of the gods evidence is not an objective approach, even if a useful tool.

Marketing, which is considered a social science, also uses statistical methods. This implies all natural science, that uses statistical methods, should be considered a part of social science; due to the subjectivity of fuzzy dice data. That math method adds a math bias in terms of how one explains and views reality; whims of the gods. In that universe objectivity; probability of 1.0 or pure objectivity is not achievable.

Evolution, as currently expressed and marketed, should be considered social science, due to using the same math approach as political science and marketing. But it is sold; marketed, as natural and objective science. This social science connection is why evolution is one of the few "objective science" engaged in a social war manipulating public opinion like a marketeer and politician.

If you ever wondered why I took a water centric approach to life and evolution, I was trying to move evolution away from being a fuzzy dice social science, into a more objective natural science by adding a more well researched and objective central variable. But too many people believe in the marketing hype of the social science of evolution, saying it is objective science, even with a fuzzy dice data methodology.

This is also why I try to show how the brain works, so one can be objective to internal bias, that may not be fully conscious. One needs to understand the nature of subjectivity, to be able to factor it out, when doing objective science. If you cannot embrace subjectivity; inner data, you will never learn to be objective to it, and to the subjective inductions created by the social sciences.

Science is expensive, especially by the book science that leads to publications. It requires lots of benefactors who may or may not be scientists, but who may be in it more for the marketing hype or the politics; social sciences leading objective science via resources. Without a firm understanding of our subjective nature, how do filter out the cross contamination, and not end up with objective social science or subjective objective science.

For example, there is new data such a universe super structure, that refutes the standard theory, but the theory does not go away. Science and objectivity is not leading. Science is also big business, jobs, prestige and livelihood; many social science considerations to hang on.