To my mind, we need a word that can reference all that exists external to our thoughts, that refers to that which exists whether or not there are any human beings to perceive it.
That would be objectivity, but reality only exists when there is an observer, in this case, humans. It becomes pointless if we weren't here? Is what you mean, things that are objectively true?
Like gravity being objectively true, regardless of whether humans existed or not? If we didn't exist why would the reality of it matter?
If you as an individual suggest that there are multiple parallel Universes that do not interact or communicate in any way for no other reason than you can imagine such a thing, from a neutral and objective scientific perspective, such a suggestion can only be treated as fiction, specifically science fiction in this case.
There are data, even though weak. We do have our Universe to draw on, so we at least know that one can be created or come into existence. So it is a pretty big leap to just conclude that another one couldn't exist. We know that the Universe is expanding, couldn't one expand somewhere else and eventually "collide" with ours? no different than two galaxies colliding (just on a much smaller scale).
Im not sure if this is a hypothesis or merely a theory as I haven't looked into it all that much, just remember that they said you could measure the interference.
The above applies to the case of absolutely not data. What of the cases involving limited or incomplete data? This would be where the lion's share of the hard work is done in science. In these cases, science uses language to indicate the degree of confidence to which suggested explanations are held. They range from hypothesis, to theory, to established fact. Outside of this consists of guesses and speculation. The word Law is also used in science to reference established relationships between variables.
The cases or approach goes like this, from observation/idea -> hypothesis -> facts -> scientific theory.
Which is why I say, I don't know where the parallel universe is placed. Because we have the observation of the Universe and the idea that more could potentially exist, but whether there has been created a hypothesis, im not sure, as that requires that it is testable, but it's a long time ago I saw the documentary about it, so not sure if they have a way of testing it or if the testing was just an idea of how it could potentially be done, it is not a hill im going to die on
.
Facts are obviously what is observed to be true. And finally, you have the scientific theory, which is the highest level of confidence in science, which explains why something is a fact. Which is very commonly getting misunderstood or misused. The theory of evolution is very often attacked by those disagreeing with it by saying that it is just a theory. Which is because they use the common understanding of the word theory. But evolution is a scientific theory, that they don't know or simply leave out.
This also highlights an important point, and that is that it doesn’t really matter what you or I or any individual speculates about the nature of reality as human beings are imperfect and fallible. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, agree with that. That is why we make use of the scientific method to reduce errors and biases so to speak.
I assumed we were treating this as a hypothetical example of something that is suggested in which there is no data to either establish or infer it. Any answer to a question regarding objective reality that relies on unfalsifiable premises cannot be considered anything other than fiction, or again, science fiction.
Again don't know where exactly the parallel universe lies. But are they unfalsifiable? Is it impossible to prove God exists for instance? at least God could provide the proof, if what he is said to be is true, then this should be no issue for him. But I agree with you, that until then or those who believe it to be true can provide proof, it is nothing but speculations that we have no reason to take seriously. Yet societies are highly influenced by this unjustified belief. It wouldn't be any different than humans starting to build a defense system against a threat from a parallel Universe because we believe that to be true, based on absolutely nothing.
Instead, we should be speaking to, and referencing what the collective scientific understanding is in regards to reality. In this regard, is it really jumping to conclusions to dismiss the notion of the “supernatural”, an unobservable, undetectable realm immune from verification? How does one declare such a realm, immune from verification, and then make specific claims about what it contains? Is this not ludicrous from a scientific perspective?
Because science ONLY deals with the natural world and nothing else. It has no methods designed for testing the supernatural claims, so they are excluded from it. The closest you can get is that they want to test people claiming these things to do it under controlled conditions, which when done they have failed time after time. For instance, they have tried testing if prayers work and found that it had no effect or worse effect for people that were sick because the person being prayed for feels guilt or something like that. They have also tried the put a note up top of a cabinet and see if those claiming to have near-death experiences could read it, yet they couldn't.
But in general, science doesn't deal with this, and the religious community has made no progress in even trying to demonstrate their claim or come up with valid methods for verifying the supernatural. The closest you get is using fallacies, such as trying to disprove evolution with intelligent design/creationism etc. Despite even if they could disprove evolution, it wouldn't make their own claims any more true.
The supernatural realm is not immune, but there is no one having a clue how you would even go about verifying it in the first place when there is no rules.
If the answer to a question lies beyond our perception, all that is left is to say we do not know.
Yes, and that is what science does all the time. But religion doesn't play by those rules, they claim truth without providing any evidence.
If you are putting the Big Bang and dark matter on the same footing as “the supernatural” and all the many “gods”, then we are clearly not on the same page.
Im not. I was merely saying that a lot of these ideas might at first have been considered extraordinary claims. Imagine back in the days when some reckless lunatic suggested that Earth was not the center of the Universe!! Back then this would have been seen as blasphemy and probably also as an extraordinary claim going against the established "knowledge".
So just because something to us seems extraordinary doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Do you really have the same level of confidence in “the supernatural” and all the many “gods” that science places in the Big Bang Theory?
No of course not. But that doesn't mean that I feel confident enough to conclude that they are wrong, especially if I can't demonstrate why it is so. I choose to leave it to them to convince me that they are right. And until they do, I will treat it as being false. That is why I am an atheist.
For any claim about reality to be taken seriously it would require scientific evaluation and subsequent acceptance with some degree of confidence assigned.
Yes and no, depending on what you mean. I would simply say that it required verifiable observation to be considered true. Whether that is measured or seen etc. For instance UFOs, we have "pictures" of them, yet they have not been verified as true, so we don't treat them as aliens at least. But they are still part of reality and unknown.
But isn't lies, misinformation, or even stuff that are made up part of reality as well? Again not talking about what is objectively true, which again I think you might be referring to.
Really? We can’t apply our 21st century understanding of reality, referencing broadly our knowledge of physics, biology with emphasis on evolution and behavioral sciences, sociology, anthropology, history, and Biblical Criticism to bear on claims made in religious texts? I find the argument of, “You weren’t there so you can’t say one way or another.”, to be a specious one.
Yes, we can do that on specific claims and we do. But that doesn't mean that we can then automatically dismiss all claims as a result.
If a history book contains an error or certain parts are "manipulated", we don't dismiss the whole book as being wrong either, there might be reasons why certain parts of it were written as it was. This is a well-known issue in ancient texts, which is why they use more sources.
No, they are ideas or guesses of what is real and what is not. I don't think I would compare myths to theories. I believe they are different things.
