If Science Can't Answer it...

[Shaul]

Science is limited. It has a domain but is not omnipotent. There are other domains in which science is tangential or not relevant. Nor are these other domains necessarily religious. Consider the domains of poetry, art or emotions. These spheres are not constrained by science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Natural and artificial are opposites.
Therefore it's logical they start the same way.
Right.

Opposites attract, and since one of the defining characteristics of our universe is the cyclical nature of temporal phenomena, it's perfectly logical that opposites intersect at the start and end of a cycle.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. Thanks for sharing.


Try being a little less condescending.

There are many things I don't understand. You and many others here on the forums have a breadth of understanding about subjects I'll never achieve in my lifetime.
There is no superiority in accepting that everyone, including myself has an infinite capacity to learn.

 

[George-ananda]

But there is no "evidence", just unsupported claims, opinions, anecdote, etc.

I hold that there is overwhelming and well-studied evidence supporting my belief in the spiritual and paranormal.

This may be outside the scope of things science can directly study in detail, but the topic of this thread is whether we should only be interested in answers science can provide.

 

[George-ananda]

What is your best evidence for spiritual and paranormal?

Overwhelming anecdotal, investigative and experimental evidence that is an endless topic in itself.

What is being opposed to scientism? You use a computer, a modern marvel of science? Are you ok with progress and tech from science and why if you are opposed to scientism?

I don't think from that you understand what the word 'Scientism' means. From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

I am pro-Science but anti-Scientism.

 

[George-ananda]

I think it's time for the Steven Novella quote again:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

We run into plenty of situations in our lives when we don't have enough information or time to apply the full rigor of science to a question we need to answer.

However, any time someone - as you have - claims to be answering factual questions that "answers physical science cannot yet address," we should recognize that what they're really saying is:

- their "answers" haven't had - and can't have - rigor applied to them, and

I have no disagreement with that Steve Novella quote. But I am saying I have interests and learn from things science cannot address at this time.

- they're selling you a bill of goods.

Now we are into disagreement. I am convinced there is real information about reality that can be grasped with psychic senses that are beyond the range of our physical senses and instruments. I consider the teachings and insights of those I judge worthy of my respect.

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you agree?

With Dawkins, as a rule, no. I don't even think addressing any question contrasting science and religion is valid, which he seems to enjoy doing (or enjoy getting paid to do). It isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and elephants.

I'd also question him of the quoted example, in that science isn't incapable of (being used to) answer anything. The issue with answering "What is the purpose of the Sun?" is that it presupposes that it even has a purpose. The question is meaningless if the Sun doesn't have a purpose but is (theoretically) answerable if it does have a purpose. In general, I question the idea that there could be anything impossible to answer via scientific method in principle, though I'm sure there are plenty of things humans will always be incapable of answering using science (or anything other process).

Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

As I've pointed out, I consider that an entirely different topic of conversation, but as a rule I'd say no. Religion describes a shared system of beliefs and practices. Nothing about that automatically includes anything about finding answers to anything. Philosophy can aid with working out (certainly understanding) meaningful answers and a lot of philosophy gets associated with religions (legitimately or not) but that doesn't mean those religions get to co-opt the achievements of that philosophy.

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist says I know God.

As he posed the thesis himself. As a living human.

All of the highest greatest positions in created creation I can observe.

Which is a form of religion. As it's reverence to the hierarchy observed.

Now if you then believe just a human has a right to use my human life as a comparison to anything else. I am the highest position a human myself.

It was only human egotists who said by my conscious astute innate awareness human and....via medical processes from mineral or herbs for self. Did he then quote I hence own dominion. I'm advised he said.

Proven. His wisdom.

That's another type of religious science. Other advices than my own told me. Yet I observed.

As if a human says I believe aliens live on a planet say Jupiter...the alien like a human would be dominion placed.

Why is it that a human names the planet and supposed species?

So human behaviour is involved and not just observation of applied sciences.

Becoming a religious concept.

As brain Entrainment practice...after brain body sacrifice was medically introduced. To save humanity from science caused evil thoughts. Religious science again.

Religion became a legality.

What it evolved into is obvious change today via rich man's control and want of particular social outcomes.

So if a human says I give hierarchy to conditions. Why change it?

As the advice is then destructive and not constructive terms.

So he's not Mr know it all.

Therefore religion owns it place with science as a control purpose of self identifying science was wrong.

As law is first given by men to science. Which they broke with their own purpose...conversion.

So religion had to implement a humans legal advice.

It's why religion stated no human can know what creation isn't. As the only term not creation in science is when a man converts mass.

Bone inside our body is like the planets rock. Your bio conscious life wouldn't exist thinking without it.

So religious science imposed lawful evaluations. You can't know the creator.

 

[Nakosis]

Science is limited. It has a domain but is not omnipotent. There are other domains in which science is tangential or not relevant. Nor are these other domains necessarily religious. Consider the domains of poetry, art or emotions. These spheres are not constrained by science.

These other areas are about your emotions/feelings. While it maybe difficult for us to access the why you feel what you feel, because our feelings are the results of the subconscious process, the how we feel is understood.

The science of emotions – How It Works

 

[Audie]

Opposites attract, and since one of the defining characteristics of our universe is the cyclical nature of temporal phenomena, it's perfectly logical that opposites intersect at the start and end of a cycle.

"Audie" rolls her eyes heavenward in mock resignation.

 

[Audie]

Science is limited. It has a domain but is not omnipotent. There are other domains in which science is tangential or not relevant. Nor are these other domains necessarily religious. Consider the domains of poetry, art or emotions. These spheres are not constrained by science.

That is too trivially obvious for such hyperexplicationarianism.

 

[KWED]

I hold that there is overwhelming and well-studied evidence supporting my belief in the spiritual and paranormal.

Perhaps you do, but you are unable to present anything that amounts to "evidence". And no one else is able to either.
Therefore these claims of "evidence" can be dismissed.

This may be outside the scope of things science can directly study in detail, but the topic of this thread is whether we should only be interested in answers science can provide.

It's not really a valid question though. No one claims that only what science can demonstrate is interesting.
However, if you claim that you have actual evidence for something like the supernatural, it becomes a part of this issue of the nature of evidence and explanations.

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps you do, but you are unable to present anything that amounts to "evidence". And no one else is able to either.
Therefore these claims of "evidence" can be dismissed.

It's not really a valid question though. No one claims that only what science can demonstrate is interesting.
However, if you claim that you have actual evidence for something like the supernatural, it becomes a part of this issue of the nature of evidence and explanations.

I am using the word 'Evidence' per the first definition in the dictionary:

ev·i·dence
[ˈevədəns]
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

So, for example, if two people claim to have seen the same ghost then that is 'evidence' (not proof) for the ghost.

Perhaps science cannot do much with that anecdotal evidence. But by having interest in more than science, I consider all evidence in forming my 'all things considered' position.

This is called normal human reasoning skills.

 

[Shaul]

These other areas are about your emotions/feelings. While it maybe difficult for us to access the why you feel what you feel, because our feelings are the results of the subconscious process, the how we feel is understood.

The science of emotions – How It Works

These other areas are subjective but I don’t agree that they are entirely emotional. You are trying to suggest that because the domain of science may overlap these domains that equates to their being subject to science. That is incorrect.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I am using the word 'Evidence' per the first definition in the dictionary:

ev·i·dence
[ˈevədəns]
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

So, for example, if two people claim to have seen the same ghost then that is 'evidence' (not proof) for the ghost.

Perhaps science cannot do much with that anecdotal evidence. But by having interest in more than science, I consider all evidence in forming my 'all things considered' position.

This is called normal human reasoning skills.

Actually, in your example, you are not.
Testimony does not equate to “the available body of facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”.

So, for example, if two people claim to have seen the same ghost then that is 'evidence' (not proof) for the ghost.

More accurately;
If two people claim to have seen the same ghost, then that is ‘testimony’ or ‘declaration’ of two people that believe they saw a ghost.
The ‘evidence’ would be some non perceptual corroborating indication that their testimonies are accurate and not subject to presupposition.

This is why the question is often asked;
“Do you have evidence to back up that testimony?”

 

[George-ananda]

Actually, in your example, you are not.
Testimony does not equate to “the available body of facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”.



More accurately;
If two people claim to have seen the same ghost, then that is ‘testimony’ or ‘declaration’ of two people that believe they saw a ghost.
The ‘evidence’ would be some non perceptual corroborating indication that their testimonies are accurate and not subject to presupposition.

This is why the question is often asked;
“Do you have evidence to back up that testimony?”

Here you are just hair-splitting about words like 'evidence' versus 'testimony' but the word you want to use is totally unimportant to my point.

In forming an 'all things considered' position I consider all of the above. I consider all 'testimony' and non-perceptual information if that's what you prefer to call it. In reasoning we form judgments on the quality, quantity and consistency of testimony/evidence and consider that in our overall evaluation.

 

[ppp]

Here you are just hair-splitting about words like 'evidence' versus 'testimony' but the word you want to use is totally unimportant to my point.

In forming an 'all things considered' position I consider all of the above. I consider all 'testimony' and non-perceptual information if that's what you prefer to call it. In reasoning we form judgments on the quality, quantity and consistency of testimony/evidence and consider that in our overall evaluation.

And as no one has demonstrated that they know, or are capable of knowing what they claim about a non-material domain, the quality of the testimony is zero.

 

[George-ananda]

And as no one has demonstrated that they know, or are capable of knowing what they claim about a non-material domain, the quality of the testimony is zero.

That might be the position of Scientism perhaps.

As for me, not being a follower of Scientism, I feel quite a bit is explained in Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric wisdom traditions about non-material domains. The information presented is purported to be the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses. It is presented for our consideration.

 

[KWED]

Opposites attract,

That's magnetism. It certainly doesn't apply to everything.

and since one of the defining characteristics of our universe is the cyclical nature of temporal phenomena,

Interesting. Care to give some examples with supporting evidence?

it's perfectly logical that opposites intersect at the start and end of a cycle.

Whuh?

 

[KWED]

Overwhelming anecdotal, investigative and experimental evidence that is an endless topic in itself.

When you say "overwhelming", do you just mean "I find convincing"?

BTW, "Anecdote" is note "evidence" - otherwise my anecdote of seeing with your mother means it happened.

I don't think from that you understand what the word 'Scientism' means. From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

I am pro-Science but anti-Scientism.

What do you mean by "epistemological"?