If Science Can't Answer it...

[Audie]

That's true. Too many supernatural claims are just superstition. But there are things science can't examine because science is limited.

Trivially obvious, don't you think?
It's particularly limited, nay, incapable
when it comes to investigating the
nonexistent.

 

[Audie]

As you correctly point out;
The information is “purported to be” (i.e. alleged: asserted; doubtful; suspect; supposed) the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses.

Of course there is ‘testimony’ of psychic/clairvoyant senses, but no clear ‘evidence’ of such.
Again, words have meanings.



While you are forming judgments of quality (how is this determined?) and consistency of this data,
do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?

Testimony is only good so far as there
is some sort of corroboration, and can pass the
"reasonable person" standard.

 

[George-ananda]

As you correctly point out;
The information is “purported to be” (i.e. alleged: asserted; doubtful; suspect; supposed) the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses.

I said 'purported' because I can't verify their honesty and accuracy. That's part of my consideration. Anecdotes are not perfect evidence but that does not make them worthless evidence either. One person enountering a ghost can always be mistaken or correct. And further on I consider what are the chances all people claiming ghost encounters are mistaken.

Of course there is ‘testimony’ of psychic/clairvoyant senses, but no clear ‘evidence’ of such.
Again, words have meanings.

While I claim the preponderance of evidence can allow us to form certain positions,

While you are forming judgments of quality (how is this determined?) and consistency of this data,
do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?

We use our best judgment of what is going on in our daily lives and the world around us as part of normal human reasoning. It's a judgment on 'all things considered'. It is not a perfect science, but it is the best we got on things science can't tell us definitively. Nobody I know has no opinion on anything science can't prove or disprove. Your religion says: Atheist. Sounds like you are forming an opinion on something science can't prove or disprove, right?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans made all choices.

Groups own cult behaviour. Tactics coercion and human threats were first.

Not fact. Not science. No machines just natural human life first.

Science only began its practices on threat.

So the status I'm allowed to do whatever I want was supported by human death threats. Torment and starvation and torture.

And today you want humanity to believe a human chosen criminal objective was fact?

You seem to misunderstand that humans lived in regard to talking about gods term as a living human only.

How you misrepresent the writings is because we don't have the support of an original legal reader of the testimony anymore.

We had to state the heavens owned why human biology cell blood existed living.... yet earth God planet rock owned why we had bones inside our body.

Medical healer argument. Why we only ever belonged on earth.

Yet theists put human beginnings quoting human into out of space themes and direct human aware ground mass reactions.

It's only theists as humans who pretended their thoughts superseded human reality. So the teaching said science introduced a split mind.

Affected by outside body awareness attacks. Whilst owning self body totally naturally.

As a healer human in medical was another human bodily assessing the patient only.

Your science testimony quotes science is lifes destroyer exact.

As no human Invented created creation was the teaching ...no man is a God or god.

God terms in human sciences begin with chemical Alchemy they understood by human practice only. Humans.

And it's a big con actually. Sophist coercion. Egotism. Awards to ascertain design invention to gain new monetary Investment for more money.

So rich man science control is a small community who says my robotic technology will supersede the need for humanities existence in any future except their group.

As controller one richest men group technology inventors they see as just their group living. Man as machine actually. As they say already man is part machine expecting to increase its takeover bio attack not yet activated. By their control.

With supported robotic intelligence owners inventing saying without argument. Owners of everything on earth our heritage by machines.

No family to argue. So their intent is to wipe us out of owning our human genetics. By claiming humans began as cloud mass a body reaction above only first.

Not human is natural first which is first humans scientific Observation. Observation by purpose says without created creation you own no topic or subject.

As they are part of humanity family in biology yet pretend they aren't in thesis is the dilemma.

To a man with his machine partnership his co creation is his machines womb reaction. Not human.

As he claims by thinking his thesis he invented life. It's termed a confession.

Yet abstract to his human one only life self is the want invented reaction.

Where is the other equal mutual life continuance in that review? As men the origin science leader one man agreed group? All terms by men only.

The woman human?

Oh did he forget to advise you he pretended she didn't exist. And named it space womb exact reasoning!!

Human woman versus space womb thesis beginning comparison is no human woman alive.

What scientific human lying meant.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I said 'purported' because I can't verify their honesty and accuracy. That's part of my consideration. Anecdotes are not perfect evidence but that does not make them worthless evidence either. One person enountering a ghost can always be mistaken or correct. And further on I consider what are the chances all people claiming ghost encounters are mistaken.While I claim the preponderance of evidence can allow us to form certain positions,


We use our best judgment of what is going on in our daily lives and the world around us as part of normal human reasoning. It's a judgment on 'all things considered'. It is not a perfect science, but it is the best we got on things science can't tell us definitively. Nobody I know has no opinion on anything science can't prove or disprove. Your religion says: Atheist. Sounds like you are forming an opinion on something science can't prove or disprove, right?

Yes, I am an atheist.
I form my opinions in much the same way that you
say you do;
by judging the available information, weighing the veracity, reliability, quality of it….applying critical reasoning (I think this is where our methods begin to diverge) and determine whether or not the data is sufficient to verify the claim or proposition.

I do not give as much credence to testimony the likes of which, as you have admitted, has not been verified to be honest and/or accurate.
Particularly when similar accounts have been explicitly proven to be false.

I am convinced that much of such testimonies are believed true by those who report them.
However we know how easily people can be fooled by presuppositions individually and particularly in crowds or in solidarity with others, and fail to observe with a critical eye…..
Thus are notoriously unreliable.

As result I much more favor actual provable, reliable, repeatable, verifiable, testable, ‘evidence’ over unprovable, unreliable, unrepeatable, unverifiable, untestable ‘testimony’ and often associate ‘anecdotal’ claims of accounts similarly.

Thus I don’t consider ‘anecdotal evidence’ useless;
I do consider it to be very low quality ‘evidence’ (using the term loosely) particularly when weighed against more rigorous standards of evidence which may contradict it.

This is why I asked you, and shall again;
Do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?
And if so why?

 

[Tiberius]

The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Since I don't think Dawkins himself would speak of "Dawkins scientist", I get the feeling that this is not a direct quote, but rather an account of the lecture that was written by someone else.

So I have to wonder if Dawkins really did make the claim that a question is meaningless if science can't answer it. Can anyone provide a transcript of the lecture?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

Interesting. Care to give some examples with supporting evidence?

Whuh?

You want evidence for the cyclical nature of temporal phenomena? Time as you experience it is literally defined by the cyclical motion of astronomical bodies.

Do you know what time it is
right now? You should be able to estimate it by observing the sun’s position in the sky, which is almost where it was 24 hours ago.

We’re around the midpoint between the solstice and equinox, if you were wondering what season we’re in. If you live near the coast and you saw the moon last night, you should be able to predict the time of the tides by referring to the lunar cycle.

The cycle of the sun around Sagittarius A* at the centre of the Milky Way takes a little longer; around 225 million years

 

[George-ananda]

This is why I asked you, and shall again;
Do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?
And if so why?

Things that can be proven by science should be accepted. But spiritual/paranormal things cannot be proved or disproved by science at this time. Hence the best method is reason over all available information. And from there I take away what the preponderance of evidence is showing my reason. The more thorough I research and reason, the more neutral and fair-minded I can be, the more valuable is my takeaway.

One of my takeaways is that things happen that break the current materialist paradigm. Question #2 becomes what is this 'more' which leads me next to consideration of wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etcetera) that present understandings for my consideration (not blind acceptance).

 

[joelr]

Are you okay with the existence of nuclear weapons powerful enough to destroy every living thing on earth? Why not, as a devotee of scientifism? Is the H bomb not a marvel of modern science?

Of course it is? It isn't science that uses bombs it's people? Fusion could also be used as an energy source in the future. It could also be used against an asteroid as well. The internet is used to harm far more people than atomic weapons lately. There are kidnappings and sexual trafficing, hacking, millions of dollars stolen from people. But we don't suggest shutting down the internet. Technology by itself isn't evil.
It's also possible that nuclear weapons stopped a war with Russia.

So again, if you are anti-science why would you support and use it's technology? That includes phones, computer, and all modern travel as well as medical advancements like X-ray and MRI.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Things that can be proven by science should be accepted. But spiritual/paranormal things cannot be proved or disproved by science at this time. Hence the best method is reason over all available information. And from there I take away what the preponderance of evidence is showing my reason. The more thorough I research and reason, the more neutral and fair-minded I can be, the more valuable is my takeaway.

So would it be fair to say that you would favor (give more weight) to things proven by science and accept a scientific explanation over unverifiable testimony concerning a contradictory position?

Then if spiritual/paranormal claims are made but can’t be verified despite the fact that multiple attempts have tried and failed to do so,
and numerous similar claims have been demonstrated to be false; that it becomes the role of science to DISPROVE such claims?

So if you presuppose (which is necessary since they have never been demonstrated) the existence of spiritual/paranormal phenomena then unverifiable testimony becomes the de facto standard for evidence because science hasn’t proved these phenomena to not exist?

Surely you understand the concept of not being able to prove something doesn’t exist…..
instead it must be proved TO exist.

Shouldn't that violate the notion of “neutral and fair-minded” and make those testimonials unreliable and thus lacking value?

 

[joelr]

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

Give me the best experimental evidence you know of if you can.
Overwhelming anecdotal evidence says alien abductions are real, miracles in every religion and cult. Faith healers, who have later been arrested as fraud are considered real by that method and Christian Science members can heal disease with only prayer according to overwhelming anecdotal evidence. Except the American Cancer Society released a report demonstrating over 200 children with cancers that were highly treatable with medicine, had died as a result of Christian Science members relying only on prayer. Also that their overall mortality rate was higher than the average population.
But they still insist and prove it with anecdotal evidence. Thousands of them.

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.

Well in the above examples a bit of critical thinking and desire to face the idea that a belief may not be true would have saved lives. Scientism may not be the only path but there are definitely others that are more flawed that seem correct to believers.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Of course it is? It isn't science that uses bombs it's people? Fusion could also be used as an energy source in the future. It could also be used against an asteroid as well. The internet is used to harm far more people than atomic weapons lately. There are kidnappings and sexual trafficing, hacking, millions of dollars stolen from people. But we don't suggest shutting down the internet. Technology by itself isn't evil.
It's also possible that nuclear weapons stopped a war with Russia.

So again, if you are anti-science why would you support and use it's technology? That includes phones, computer, and all modern travel as well as medical advancements like X-ray and MRI.

Who is anti-science? I don't place all my faith in science, and don't consider it the saviour of mankind, but that doesn't make me anti science. Modern technologies bring as many problems as they do solutions, but it would be foolish to reject them. And I am very interested in what scientific discoveries can tell us about life, the universe and everything; in order for science to do that, there necessarily has to be some overlap with philosophy, sometimes poetry and, yes, even theology. Because much as the human mind likes to put things in boxes, our best insights and advances tend to come when everyone is encouraged to think outside their particular box.

You seem to be one of those who have made science your religion. Perhaps you feel the need to defend your new religion against heretics, but why do you need to have a religion at all?

 

[Audie]

Yes, I am an atheist.
I form my opinions in much the same way that you
say you do;
by judging the available information, weighing the veracity, reliability, quality of it….applying critical reasoning (I think this is where our methods begin to diverge) and determine whether or not the data is sufficient to verify the claim or proposition.

I do not give as much credence to testimony the likes of which, as you have admitted, has not been verified to be honest and/or accurate.
Particularly when similar accounts have been explicitly proven to be false.

I am convinced that much of such testimonies are believed true by those who report them.
However we know how easily people can be fooled by presuppositions individually and particularly in crowds or in solidarity with others, and fail to observe with a critical eye…..
Thus are notoriously unreliable.

As result I much more favor actual provable, reliable, repeatable, verifiable, testable, ‘evidence’ over unprovable, unreliable, unrepeatable, unverifiable, untestable ‘testimony’ and often associate ‘anecdotal’ claims of accounts similarly.

Thus I don’t consider ‘anecdotal evidence’ useless;
I do consider it to be very low quality ‘evidence’ (using the term loosely) particularly when weighed against more rigorous standards of evidence which may contradict it.

This is why I asked you, and shall again;
Do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?
And if so why?

I trust anecdotes from those with demonstrated reliability, but provisionally.
I am very disinclined to repeat them as fact.

 

[George-ananda]

So would it be fair to say that you would favor (give more weight) to things proven by science and accept a scientific explanation over unverifiable testimony concerning a contradictory position?

Then if spiritual/paranormal claims are made but can’t be verified despite the fact that multiple attempts have tried and failed to do so,
and numerous similar claims have been demonstrated to be false; that it becomes the role of science to DISPROVE such claims?

So if you presuppose (which is necessary since they have never been demonstrated) the existence of spiritual/paranormal phenomena then unverifiable testimony becomes the de facto standard for evidence because science hasn’t proved these phenomena to not exist?

Surely you understand the concept of not being able to prove something doesn’t exist…..
instead it must be proved TO exist.

Shouldn't that violate the notion of “neutral and fair-minded” and make those testimonials unreliable and thus lacking value?

What I think is going on here is not so much any philosophical differences between us about science BUT rather a disagreement about the quantity, quality and consistency of psychic/paranormal/spiritual phenomena and spiritual traditions describing the super-physical in greater detail.

I think many in the scientism/atheist/materialist camp are just underinformed about these subjects as scientific-materialism has had its day in the last century as ruling the academic roost. So they are quick to make the false claim that this stuff has been studied and shown to fail by science and so forth. They probably truly believe that because they are underinformed and materialist-science has a bias against these 'spiritual and superstitious' things. I would ask how well-versed are these people in the evidence? Here's just one website chock full of evidence that I sincerely believe has never been explained-away by materialist science: Afterlife Evidence.

If you can provide a better explanation for the data presented there, I would accept your explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

Give me the best experimental evidence you know of if you can.

The best experimental evidence is odds against chance experiments showing the reality of psychic ability. But to me that is rather minor compared to the investigative evidence for things like Afterlife Sciences.

Overwhelming anecdotal evidence says alien abductions are real, miracles in every religion and cult. Faith healers, who have later been arrested as fraud are considered real by that method and Christian Science members can heal disease with only prayer according to overwhelming anecdotal evidence. Except the American Cancer Society released a report demonstrating over 200 children with cancers that were highly treatable with medicine, had died as a result of Christian Science members relying only on prayer. Also that their overall mortality rate was higher than the average population.
But they still insist and prove it with anecdotal evidence. Thousands of them.

Well, each of those things require its own discussion. Suffice it here to say I do not suggest every belief and behavior is always correct and best. Reason and intelligence are our best tools.

Well in the above examples a bit of critical thinking and desire to face the idea that a belief may not be true would have saved lives. Scientism may not be the only path but there are definitely others that are more flawed that seem correct to believers.

So, then I think our goal should be to find and carve the best path all things considered. Science is good. Spirituality is good. Reason and intelligence should be our tools.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's true. Too many supernatural claims are just superstition. But there are things science can't examine because science is limited.

Just out of interest, do you have an example of something science can't be used to examine?

Note that I am not asking about things humans are incapable of studying using science, the statement is about science being used (regardless of who or what they hypothetical user is).

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just out of interest, do you have an example of something science can't be used to examine?

Note that I am not asking about things humans are incapable of studying using science, the statement is about science being used (regardless of who or what they hypothetical user is).

What scientific method would you use to analyse the poetry of T.S. Elliot (who was quite interested in Einstein’s theories)?

 

[HonestJoe]

What scientific method would you use to analyse the poetry of T.S. Elliot (who was quite interested in Einstein’s theories)?

Well that would be the evidence rather than a question being studied.

It is definitely possible to study literature (including poetry) in a formal manner, looking at things like linguistic complexity, rhyming and scanning structure etc. (coincidentally, I've actually done that). You could also carry out psychological or sociologic studies on various forms of reaction of people reading and/or hearing the poetry.

 

[paarsurrey]

"If Science Can't Answer it..."

Then religion will, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

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

" no value "

on what standard, please?

Regards