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

[Audie]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

It has often struck me as odd that this isn't called into question more. This premise of science alone as valid for evidence.

Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

Good question. Whatever does give you this impression? Can you cite a specific reference?
Who argues for that?

 

[osgart]

scientists assume that their explanations of ultimate questions is true, and that religion doesn't ask valid questions. Some scientists claim that there is no other valid means of understanding reality. Yet science answers themselves are extrinsic to nature, not intrinsic.

They can manipulate phenomenon, and predict results with stunning accuracy. They can identify phenomenon in their own terms and predict what they will do. But they can't tell you the intrinsic nature of reality. Why something is the way it is.

A lot of extraneous interpretations of reality happen with scientists trying to dismiss all other forms of knowledge and thinking. I.e. , consciousness is just an illusion, there is no free will, multiverses are real, wormholes, etc.

They speculate beyond their reach all the time. But they should by no means try to invalidate other established means of knowing. Mainly philosophy. And last time I checked there is still a philosophy of religion. Why? , because it still asks valid questions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

It has often struck me as odd that this isn't called into question more. This premise of science alone as valid for evidence.

Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

Thus far in the history of human beings the scientific method has been shown to be the most reliable method we've ever come up with for determining how reality works. I don't think anyone is claiming that the scientific method is the ONLY method for determining how reality works, just that thus far it's proven itself to be the MOST reliable.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What are people doing practicing religion then? Spinning our wheels?

People practice religion as something like a science experiment from what I see. They are asked to observe the results it produces in their lives and decide on the religion's merits for themselves.

I see this as no different than what science does. What makes it different?

In science ANYONE can do the experiment and come up with the exact SAME results. I've yet to to hear of any religion where this is the case. That's a HUGE difference.

 

[Skwim]

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

In as much as I can't recall anyone ever making such a claim---maybe others here do,---I 'd need a couple of examples or so before I could accept your claim as true. What ya got?

To the others here, have you ever heard of such a thing?

.

 

[shunyadragon]

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

Materialists do not represent science, because it requires a philosophical assumption that methodological naturalism. cannot make. Scientific methods do not prove anything true. The research based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis may find things false, but it is not proven.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

No, it is based on objective verifiable evidence.

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that? On what authority should this be accepted?

The objective verifiable evidence, and repeated testing with acientific methods. There is no competing methodology to test and verify our physical existence.


Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

 

[Audie]

In as much as I can't recall anyone ever making such a claim---maybe others here do,---I 'd need a couple of examples or so before I could accept your claim as true. What ya got?

To the others here, have you ever heard of such a thing?

.

Not me, that is why I asked essentially the same thing.

I think our friend is just talking about his own perceptions.

 

[David T]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

It has often struck me as odd that this isn't called into question more. This premise of science alone as valid for evidence.

Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

This is like asking an evangelical to explain the new testament. Will you recieve a clear answer? No. The issue lay i neurology and our perceptions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What are people doing practicing religion then? Spinning our wheels?

People practice religion as something like a science experiment from what I see. They are asked to observe the results it produces in their lives and decide on the religion's merits for themselves.

I see this as no different than what science does. What makes it different?

Apparently at least some people who practice religion are deluding themselves into believing that simply asking people to observe the results it produces in their lives is ANYTHING like a controlled scientific experiment.

For instance, let's say that I decide to start practicing a new religion on Thursday and then on Friday I win the lottery. What method would you use to determine if my winning the lottery was a direct result of me suddenly practicing my new religion? How would you determine that I would NOT have won the lottery is I had NOT changed my religion? If someone ELSE joins the SAME religion, but the next day they do NOT win the lottery, does that mean that the results that I got are invalid?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Perhaps someone else can help you to understand. I can't help those that refuse to learn.

This isn't refusal to learn. It's acknowledgement of the limitations of science. The bare fact of the matter is you expect people to simply accept science as the sole method of procuring evidence or proving things. That is really a view you've taken. Science carries no such admonition within itself.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The main difference is that science is repeatable and you can make predictions using it..

As you can with some religious practices and views...

Now with religion, you may tell me that Jesus has spoken to you. But I know that he hasn't spoken to me; so it is not repeatable.

I don't see how that argues for accepting science as the sole verifying method concerning information.

Agree with this. Would be interested in the OPs thoughts on it

What specifically would you like my thoughts on? I'd be happy to give them if I had a clearer idea of what I'm supposed to be addressing. Sorry, I have trouble sometimes comprehending brief replies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't refusal to learn. It's acknowledgement of the limitations of science. The bare fact of the matter is you expect people to simply accept science as the sole method of procuring evidence or proving things. That is really a view you've taken. Science carries no such admonition within itself.

There is no doubt that science is limited, but so far you have simply made trolling responses at best. You keep calling a methodology that you either do not understand or do not like to be feelings based. Perhaps a link would help:

http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance

 

[Buddha Dharma]

First of all @Sunstone let me give you kudos for an excellent, well thought out answer that gets the mind working. Bravo! Bravo!

People who believe in the validity of science alone are perhaps looking at the general success the sciences have had in establishing predictive hypotheses and reliable facts. At least, that would be my guess.

Yes. A success I readily accept.

But that raises the question of whether folks have reasonable grounds to believe in the validity of the sciences alone for "verifying information"?

Yes, quite

I have explained what "reliable intersubjective verification" means here, so I won't repeat myself in this post.

An excellent post. I have thoughts on it, but another time in another thread

but if we assume for the sake of discussion that the claim is true, then we have possible answer to the question of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe in the validity of the sciences alone, etc?

Yes, I can understand why one might take the position. I question taking the position, but I do understand.

As it happens, there are not in this case reasonable grounds to believe in the validity of the sciences alone for "verifying information". And that is because you cannot have intersubjective verification without first having subjective verification. Put differently, there are at least two ways of verifying something. Subjectively. And intersubjectively. Only one of those ways -- intersubjective verification -- is "scientific". Hence, there is at least one legitimate, non-scientific means of verifying something: Subjective verification.

This makes me want to veer off into the fun philosophical speculating about mind impressions as subjective or objective. Cartesian dualism and it's accompanying schools could only see mind impressions as subjective based on their own premises about the mind. Have you ever encountered the name Maurice Merleau-Ponty?

An example of subjective verification would be pretty much any verification of a statement about qualia, such as "Loves makes me feel all fluttery inside", or "That shade of red makes me happy." Those statements cannot be scientifically verified (i.e. reliably intersubjectively verified), of course, but they can be verified (i.e. subjectively verified).

Working with Kant's theory of knowledge, yes they can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you can with some religious practices and views...

How so? What is your control group? How do you measure success and failures?

I don't see how that argues for accepting science as the sole verifying method concerning information.

Strawman on your part.

What specifically would you like my thoughts on? I'd be happy to give them if I had a clearer idea of what I'm supposed to be addressing. Sorry, I have trouble sometimes comprehending brief replies.

One example I would like to be made clear is how do you propose to support your claims about the testable outcome of religious beliefs.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Also, in any area of study, truth depends on a dispute resolution procedure. If two people disagree about a result, is there an established way to go about testing to see which is 'correct' and which is 'wrong'?

The answer to that question may hinge on what I was touching on with @Sunstone. Is there a way to remove mind impressions from individual analysis? IE: Phenomenology, gestalt psychology, and the like. This would be veering off course for this thread though.

Now, as @Sunstone has noted, all observation is ultimately subjective observation. We have to look at the evidence and decide if it agreed with predictions or not. But, while the raw qualia are private, the *conclusions* from those qualia have to still need to have a way of resolving disputes when two people disagree.

Quite

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The word "exclusivity" does not fit well in this thread's title, IMO.

You know I respect your opinion Luis. However, I think it does when someone does indeed approach science that way.

I wonder how many do it in that way. A fair amount, probably. But not 100% or even 95%, I would bet.

Sadly, those that were raised in a worldview and never stepped beyond it are likely to fall into this camp. If we suppose this is most religious people it's probably true, but I do not think it is.

I have a question friend. Do you think atheists and materialists raised by their parents in such a framework can be just as unreflective about materialism throughout their whole life? I was raised by pretty well agnostic atheist parents, so I had the fortune of being encouraged to think. I am wondering about gnostic atheists or hard-nosed anti theists here.

For two things thing, independent verification and a far lesser degree of subjectivity.

Did you have a look at the wonderful reply put forth by our friend @Sunstone?

One example I would like to be made clear is how do you propose to support your claims about the testable outcome of religious beliefs.

I believe I have answered this when I talked about verifiability by the practitioners themselves in their lives. When a teacher tells them a certain result will follow from their practicing in such a way, and it does indeed follow.

Even Sam Harris admits this constitutes a kind of evidence from religion, but he isn't sure about the nature of it. That is- he foregoes concluding that this proves any religion is true unless we can one day show it's something else.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

They can manipulate phenomenon, and predict results with stunning accuracy. They can identify phenomenon in their own terms and predict what they will do. But they can't tell you the intrinsic nature of reality. Why something is the way it is.

Indeed not, and philosophers attempt to do this.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Thus far in the history of human beings the scientific method has been shown to be the most reliable method we've ever come up with for determining how reality works.

If I grant that premise it wouldn't argue for the exclusivity of science.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the scientific method is the ONLY method for determining how reality works, just that thus far it's proven itself to be the MOST reliable.

That may not be what they think they're claiming, yet when religious people make statements that skeptics ask us to verify with evidence- the eventual details is that they want empirical evidence. That is an appeal to science.

If no other evidence is even admissible, that means they're trusting in science alone.

In as much as I can't recall anyone ever making such a claim---maybe others here do,---I 'd need a couple of examples or so before I could accept your claim as true. What ya got?

See my above inference. Words don't always speak the truth, so much as actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have answered this when I talked about verifiability by the practitioners themselves in their lives. When a teacher tells them a certain result will follow from their practicing in such a way, and it does indeed follow.

Even Sam Harris admits this constitutes a kind of evidence from religion, but he isn't sure about the nature of it. That is- he foregoes concluding that this proves any religion is true unless we can one day show it's something else.

That is hardly evidence at all. Here you were complaining about "feelings" and that is all that your argument boils down to.

And the odds are that you misconstrued what Sam Harris said. You do know how to link sources, don't you? When you make a claim of that sort it should be backed up by a link.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

but so far you have simply made trolling responses at best.

Well if you think I'm a troll, you know where you can put me

You won't hurt my feelings.