Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[TagliatelliMonster]

E.g. how to trreat other human depends for certain case if you consider what is at play medical, social/cultural, indivudal or something else.
I have a book for profesionals about how to treat humans that for certain problems have several different models for understanding what the problem is and how to deal with it.
And only one of the model is medical, others are different again. If you have no clue that it is so for certain types of proffesional work and that the problem changes depending on what kind of model you use, then I can't help. I learned this in Danish. My books are in Danish and I don't have egnough words in English to searh for it.
I can try if you ask and see if I can find it in English.

Cool story, bro.

So what is the practical difference between a "philosophical skeptic" and "scientific skeptic"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is why we develop jargon and symbolic languages like math.



The universe = the space-time continuum. It contains, at least, everything we observe (like humans) and likely also additional things we haven't yet observed or don't have the ability to observe.

You seem to be the only one who thinks this is somehow confusing or a problem.



I can't make sense of these sentences.

That you can't make sense of these sentences, have no objective referent for some of the words. Just look up the meaning of the word referent.

 

[Balthazzar]

As long as you understand that to an atheist like me, God is not the same as to some other people as e.g. theists.

The impossibility: Failing to understand that not everyone views God the same way. The way I relate to the universe or life as a person is to acknowledge all life or existence as the supreme authority or God, in whom I live or make my dwelling. A difference in terms and relationship to our "map-room".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it did:
"
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

"Traditionelt set opdeler man videnskab i naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)."
Google translate that and you will get 3 kinds of science.

Which, as I said, talks about the difference between natural science and social science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That you can't make sense of these sentences, have no objective referent for some of the words. Just look up the meaning of the word referent.

Maybe you should stop talking in riddles trying to make yourself look smart and just be clearer?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cool story, bro.

So what is the practical difference between a "philosophical skeptic" and "scientific skeptic"?

Well, that I treat knowledge differently and don't assign authority to any claim just because it is called natural science. I dount that as much as I dount religion and philosophy.
So if you say that you can't make sense of something, I question how you know that you can't make sense of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you should stop talking in riddles trying to make yourself look smart and just be clearer?

All the words you use don't have objective referents.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that I treat knowledge differently and don't assign authority to any claim just because it is called natural science. I dount that as much as I dount religion and philosophy.

Ha, so independent testability, verification and repeated confirmation through evidence is meaningless to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All the words you use don't have objective referents.

Yawn

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which, as I said, talks about the difference between natural science and social science.

No, it talks of 3 kinds of science: "... naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)".
That you can't use google translate or even read is not my problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it talks of 3 kinds of science: "... naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)".
That you can't use google translate or even read is not my problem.

Maybe you should post in english on an english forum instead of asking people to run to an online translator.


Anyhow... so it's natural science, social science and cultural science.
Great. So what?

The point remains. It's not saying what you claim it is saying.
I gave you the example of the medical trial. How it matters not where in the world or who conducts the trial or to which culture they belong.

The scientific standards remain the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ha, so independent testability, verification and repeated confirmation through evidence is meaningless to you?

No, it is limited to me. BTW the bold word has no objective referent. When are you going to learn when you reference internal cogntion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you should post in english on an english forum instead of asking people to run to an online translator.

Well, the problem is that there really are no other cultural understandings of science, because it is not English and you can't even understand for 2 Germanic languages the following words if you check:
Natur-natural, samfund-society, kultur-culture, videnskab-science
And now with that in mind you can understand this:
"... naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)."

There are 3 cases of videnskab/science mentioned and you only really can't understand that if that is the case, because you won't understand it.
naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og kulturvidenskab. Natural science, social science and cultural science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it is limited to me.

Well, you did say that you doubt it "just as much".
And what distinguishes the natural sciences from things like religion is the empirical standards of testability and independent verification.
Since you doubt it "just as much", how else can I interpret that as those empirical standards being meaningless to you?

If you can't see how such empirical standards distinguishes it from mere religious faith based beliefs, then that sounds like a you-problem. Not a problem of science or of the scientific method.

BTW the bold word has no objective referent. When are you going to learn when you reference internal cogntion?

BTW I don't care about your silly objections.

Now you can go ahead and whine about my use of the word "silly"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, the problem is that there really are no other cultural understandings of science, because it is not English and you can't even understand for 2 Germanic languages the following words if you check:
Natur-natural, samfund-society, kultur-culture, videnskab-science
And now with that in mind you can understand this:
"... naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)."

There are 3 cases of videnskab/science mentioned and you only really can't understand that if that is the case, because you won't understand it.
naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og kulturvidenskab. Natural science, social science and cultural science.

Yes, and as I said, none of this supports your point.
It merely talks about the difference between these.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, you did say that you doubt it "just as much".
And what distinguishes the natural sciences from things like religion is the empirical standards of testability and independent verification.
Since you doubt it "just as much", how else can I interpret that as those empirical standards being meaningless to you?

If you can't see how such empirical standards distinguishes it from mere religious faith based beliefs, then that sounds like a you-problem. Not a problem of science or of the scientific method.


BTW I don't care about your silly objections.

Now you can go ahead and whine about my use of the word "silly"

So you can't understand that I understand science differently than you, but it still makes sense to me albeit differently than you.
And how you can whine yourself about how silly other people are.

Do you really don't understand human diversity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and as I said, none of this supports your point.
It merely talks about the difference between these.

And that there is 3 and not 2 as in English. And that cultural science is different than the others because of external and internal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you can't understand that I understand science differently than you

Not what I said.
You seem to have this reading comprehension problem frequently.

Do you really don't understand human diversity?

I do. I also understand how people can have really skewed ideas about how science works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that there is 3 and not 2 as in English. And that cultural science is different than the others because of external and internal.

None of which matters to the point being made concerning the natural sciences.

It's like talking to a wall..............

 

[Balthazzar]

Well, the problem is that there really are no other cultural understandings of science, because it is not English and you can't even understand for 2 Germanic languages the following words if you check:
Natur-natural, samfund-society, kultur-culture, videnskab-science
And now with that in mind you can understand this:
"... naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)."

There are 3 cases of videnskab/science mentioned and you only really can't understand that if that is the case, because you won't understand it.
naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og kulturvidenskab. Natural science, social science and cultural science.

Natural science equating to common objective standards and the others equate to how humans relate to our common denominators per social construct and as people (cultures)? I'm trying to understand the differences and the application of the types of sciences being referred to.