Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[dianaiad]

You wrote a rather long and worthless screed. When a simple error takes all sorts of text to defend one can bet that the person was wrong. If you want a longer conversation you need to address your errors when they are pointed out to you. Until you do it is not worth the effort to respond to you.

Well, so much for a conversation that doesn't include ad hominems. Have you ever heard of the concept "address the post, not the writer of it?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we did not.

So, 'demonstrable' to WHOM, SZ?

To you?

Who appointed you the right to decide for everybody else whether trust is sufficiently 'well-earned?" for the rest of us?



That is SCIENCE, SZ. .....and it is still faith if what you take is someone's word that the force it takes to move a spring is repeatable and measurable rather than going out and doing the measuring yourself.

As you say, 'events that only affect some people positively clearly do not count,' if we are talking about subjective matters of religious and philosophical beliefs. They don't count...if you are attempting to use the scientific method (or 'science') to ascertain Truth.

What you are doing is the equivalent of using an odometer to measure the depth of the ocean. Wrong tools. Wrong purpose. Wrong conclusions.

"Science" cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Subjective experiences regarding one's religious faith (or various scriptures) are LOUSY science texts. The idea is to use the methods best suited for the knowledge being explored, and to not disdain one because one likes the other.

Sorry, major honesty fail on your part.

When you can be honest give me a buzz.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, so much for a conversation that doesn't include ad hominems. Have you ever heard of the concept "address the post, not the writer of it?"

I did address the post. Where was the supposed ad hom? Again, your inability to be honest had driven the conversation to this point.

Try again.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Thanks, Wandering Peacefully, for supporting me. However, I am a hardened poster and not much troubled by such accusations. I take them as fun.

Okay. Thanks for explaining that. I'm still wondering why he accused you of trolling? I have been trying to figure things out around here. I understand about not posting in the separate religions and political non debate threads/forums. But I thought if one stayed with the topic, these types of threads as this one, were open to all to participate in? Can you please explain what "trolling" means in this forum? Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shoot and scoot for someone not really interested in the topic, as I understand it.

There is some interplay between science and arts, what I might psychologically consider aesthetically pleasing depending on my biology and background is something sciences could peruse, but I treat my artistic exploration as outside the the sciences.

You are welcome to do that, but even there, science cannot be kept away, for example what matters when someone falls in love and whom the person is likely to choose.

 

[james bond]

You're kind of preaching the choir here buddy. Saying something isn't falsifiable doesn't really show very much, IMO. Since I kind of mentioned epistemology though in philosophical systems- I will say that the scientific method is only an epistemology, and treating it as by default more valid than others is arbitrary.

I would think the educational establishment takes the position that naturalistic epistemology would have to be incorporated into the science and not the other way around. There would still be no place for religious epistemology.

 

[dianaiad]

I did address the post. Where was the supposed ad hom? Again, your inability to be honest had driven the conversation to this point.

Try again.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'ad hominem."

For instance, calling me a liar in the above post is a really good example of one. In fact, I think that you have only written one...perhaps two but I'm not going to insist on that...posts that were NOT full of insults aimed at me.

...................................and I honestly don't need that sort of conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you need to look up the definition of 'ad hominem."

For instance, calling me a liar in the above post is a really good example of one. In fact, I think that you have only written one...perhaps two but I'm not going to insist on that...posts that were NOT full of insults aimed at me.

...................................and I honestly don't need that sort of conversation.

Pointing out that you have not been honest is not the same as calling you a liar. By your standards your post is an ad hom.

If you can be honest I will have discussion with you. From the start I politely corrected your errors. You if anyone started the supposed insults.

 

[dianaiad]

Pointing out that you have not been honest is not the same as calling you a liar.

Yeah, actually, it is. That's exactly what it is, and I'm done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, actually, it is. That's exactly what it is, and I'm done.

Nope, no need to attack the messenger.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry to know that. As I said have they compared it with placebo treatment or homeopathy?

Certainly both IVIG and Plasma Exchange have been double-blind tested against placebo (i.e. no treatment). I don't know of any study involving homeopathy, but then, no legitimate medical professional or science researcher has any interest in homeopathy.

This is because, since it's "invention" over 2 centuries ago, science now knows it is simply not a reasonable way to try to treat anything. Homeopathy's nonsensical suppositions about just about all its central dogmas are utterly contradictory to what we have discovered in the fields of biology, physics and chemistry. The World Health Organization warns specifically against the use of homeopathy for any serious illness. (For non-serious illnesses, that are likely to resolve on their own, the WHO doesn't care, but still maintains that homeopathy provides no benefit at all.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am sorry to hear that you have GBS. Many years ago a friend of mine had it as well. Luckily he recovered from it. I do not know any details. But it is a scary disease.

And even though you have this it is nice to see that you are not grasping at irrational straws. Best wishes, it appears that your doctors know what they are doing in the face of a difficult disease to treat. My friend recovered and that was probably before current treatments (approximately 40 years ago). You will very probably recover too.

I don't have GBS -- my life partner does. He has the AMAN (Acute Motor Axonal Neuropathy) variant, which is often much longer lasting. It took 8 1/2 months before he was able to leave hospital in a wheelchair. It will like take another year before he can walk independently, although he can go short distances with a walker now. It's been a nightmare to live through.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By the way, according to Wikipedia:

"There have been four large scale assessments of homeopathy by national or international bodies: the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; the United Kingdom's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; the European Academies' Science Advisory Council; and the Swiss Federal Health Office. Each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding.[26][27][28] The National Health Service in England has announced a policy of not funding homeopathic medicine because it is "a misuse of resources".[29] They have called on the UK Department of Health to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items.[30]"
Homeopathy - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. no legitimate medical professional or science ..

Yeah, no legitimate medical professional or science should have interest in homeopathy, but studies were done against placebo and prayer. They could have checked Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani medicine (traditional Muslim system of medication offered by Hakeems in India) systems also.

Seriously, you may check with Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems. They have some good remedies for various ailments. India accepts and supports alternative medicine, though I am from a family (with three qualified doctors and a fourth in line) which is strictly devoted to Allopathy. India supports even Homeopathy.

 

[Nakosis]

Not if the question you think is being begged isn't in the mix. Please read on.

I just meant it assumes a God is a necessary part of the explanation.

If that floats your boat. You are, again, attempting to make science responsible for figuring out whether there is a deity. I don't think that's possible. Therefore, we should use science to examine those things that can be explored via the scientific method.

No, I'm just saying I'm not expecting anyone else to have any consideration for a God that can't be proven.

"feeling good?" Well, that's one way of exploring things science can't.

What make you feel good and what makes me feel good are likely different things. So there's nothing necessarily in common there.

Well, that's true.

At least, not yet.

Well, I don't plan on holding my breath.

 

[dianaiad]

I just meant it assumes a God is a necessary part of the explanation.




No, I'm just saying I'm not expecting anyone else to have any consideration for a God that can't be proven.

Of course. There is nothing objective about methods other than ''scientific.' That does not mean that they are, then, necessarily invalid for the question being asked.

What make you feel good and what makes me feel good are likely different things. So there's nothing necessarily in common there.

....and this is a problem, why, exactly?

 

[Audie]

I think you need to look up the definition of 'ad hominem."

For instance, calling me a liar in the above post is a really good example of one. In fact, I think that you have only written one...perhaps two but I'm not going to insist on that...posts that were NOT full of insults aimed at me.

...................................and I honestly don't need that sort of conversation.

Seriously, I dont think that one in ten even comes close to getting what
an "ad hom" actually is.

 

[Baroodi]

And this is a classic example of why religion fails and is not a pathway to the truth. If you want to claim that your scriptures are "revealed" then the burden of proof is upon you. And reinterpreting your holy books to go along with reality is merely an example of you being inconsistent.

You are right dear, what you said was a challenge in fact used by my scripture to refute all allegations of its opponents. The challenges are not merely scientific proofed by up-to-date science, but included linguistic, rhetoric, historian, numerical and logical.


It is the first book to describe the development of the fetus precisely as was described lately by modern medicine

It is the first book to describe the earth as sphere

it is the first book hinting the big Bang theory

It is the first book to describe the expansion of the space

It is the first book to talk about a barrier between seas and rivers so bitter water and fresh water cannot mix together

It is the first book to talk about the Sun as light source and about the moon as a reflector


Myriads more are there if you read a copy of translated Quran. All this was revealed more than 15 centuries back, when it was dark all around and everywhere was terra incognita. Do you think a human or a Jinn was able to dictate all that facts? (How do you judge?) this is a part from a verse in Quran asking all opponents!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yeah, no legitimate medical professional or science should have interest in homeopathy, but studies were done against placebo and prayer. They could have checked Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani medicine (traditional Muslim system of medication offered by Hakeems in India) systems also.

Seriously, you may check with Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems. They have some good remedies for various ailments. India accepts and supports alternative medicine, though I am from a family (with three qualified doctors and a fourth in line) which is strictly devoted to Allopathy. India supports even Homeopathy.

Does the fact that some group -- or even a whole nation -- supports one thing or another, does that make it both right and effective? Or is it possible that governments -- being made up of human beings, with all of our daffy beliefs, prejudices, weird ideas and what-not -- might just reflect our oddities? The fact of the matter is -- whether India supports homeopathy or doesn't does not change the basic fact that homeopathy is totally ineffective, and therefore at very best an entire waste of time and money, and at worst, a temptation to avoid effective treatments leading to irreparable harm. I'm only a wicked atheist, but I would never consent to willful (or even neglectful) harm to others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not a wicked atheist, I am a 'dharmic' atheist. If you were in India, consulting n AyurVeda specialist was not a total bad idea. As I said, for me, just like for you, modern medicine is the only system to pursue.