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

[Buddha Dharma]

So I agree that science does not provide an exclusive path to verification. Moreover, science is not the primary method people use for verification. If each person had to verify each scientific principle personally, then there would be no time left for anything else. By far, the preferred method of verification is trust.

True and I agree with much of what you said. Thank you for a thought out answer and a whole-hearted attempt at a response.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For me this exclusivity doesn't exist, even as a naturalist, irreligious atheist. Science is a model for accumulating and building off shared empirical data. That doesn't mean there isn't value in other types of explortion, say, literary, artistic, philosophical or spritual etc. Where scientism occurs is where it places value judgements of inferiority on these non-scientific pursuits. And I think that's a mistake.
And while I'm not personally interested in spirituality as a pursuit, I am interested in the arts a ton.
There is some interplay between science and arts, what I mightpsychologically consider aesthetically pleasing depending on my biology and background is something sciences could peruse, but I treat my artistic exploraion as outside the the sciences.

 

[james bond]

Eh, I don't know about that. Religions may carry an epistemology within themselves as Buddhism does, but most religions do not think the method to knowledge is of foremost importance.

Let's look at the testing and the falsifiability criteria. Testing can include just imagining a test such as a thought experiment. Creation science accepts and use that and adds observability and repeatability, too. Creation thinkers created modern science. Falsifiability is a criteria taken from Christian thinker GK Chesterton and bastardized by Karl Popper's epistemology. It eliminates the supernatural and only tests and observe the natural and material world as in naturalism and materialism. However, just because something cannot be falsified, it does not mean that it's not true or does not exist. What it means is there hasn't been a test or opposing case made yet. Yet.

If there were another dimension beyond space and time (4th dimension), then it hasn't be falsified. Has the fourth dimension or spacetime been falsified? We continue to test though. Thus, why do we do that when we do not search for God in our science?

 

[Baroodi]

True science results will never contradict with revealed facts in authentic scriptures. Scientific believes sometimes proof they are faulty after new solid experiments and discoveries. Quran is talking about 7 heavens and 7 earths. NASA now believes, after long hesitancy, that the earth layers are 7.

 

[dianaiad]

Your reading comprehension cannot be that poor.

Evidently, if your ability to write clearly is adequate, it is. Please explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True science results will never contradict with revealed facts in authentic scriptures. Scientific believes sometimes proof they are faulty after new solid experiments and discoveries. Quran is talking about 7 heavens and 7 earths. NASA now believes, after long hesitancy, that the earth layers are 7.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidently, if your ability to write clearly is adequate, it is. Please explain.

It was more than clear enough. I really can't believe that you did not understand it. But then when your errors were explained to you in the past it did not do any good. I could be wrong.

Tell me what you did not understand and I will try to help you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's your opinion. How about you stop subjecting me to it?

An interesting question, from someone who is specifically expressing their own opinion on a board (or, in your words, "subjecting" us all to it), but who would apparently prefer others refrain from doing. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is obfuscation. What I read from Wikipedia is that GBS is 'polyneuropathy'. Its causes and treatment are not exactly known. If medicine and prayer have been found to have equal effects, even no treatment or homeopathy also will have the same course of the disease. Probably there is some mechanism in the body which puts it right again.

It is NOT obfuscation. I have lived with this for over 9 months now, and studied it extensively (though I am not a physician or scientist). There are variants of GBS (AIDP, AMAN and others) that behave differently, but they have all been studied in a disciplined manner, and the effectiveness of treatment has been established.

Here's just one source: http://www.kumc.edu/Documents/neurology/041814 Grand Rounds.pdf

 

[dianaiad]

That is right, I did so when I corrected an earlier error of yours. Or did you forget your equivocation fallacies?

And no, just because a person trust someone or something does not mean that trust is well earned.

Again.

Who gets to decide whether trust is 'well earned?"

 

[dianaiad]

It was more than clear enough. I really can't believe that you did not understand it. But then when your errors were explained to you in the past it did not do any good. I could be wrong.

Tell me what you did not understand and I will try to help you.

Of course.

You wrote:

When one has to write a book to attempt to refute a simple fact it is pretty obvious that the fact is still a fact.

Please explain what book you are referring to, who wrote it, what 'simple fact' you are referring to, why that 'fact' should be considered to be so, and why the length of a refutation (book length or 300 word blurb) affects the validity of that 'fact.

(looking)

Yep, I think that covers it. That's what I didn't understand. Your aid in figuring it out, if you can do it in a manner other than ad hominem fallacies, would be appreciated.

 

[Nakosis]

In other words....HOW 'Godidit" is about science.

How God did it, is begging the question.

WHETHER Godidit is about something else. Science cannot establish whether or not there is a God; it can only knock down certain descriptions of Him (or Her or It...whatever).

Whether, without being able to validate the truth of it, it's all about whatever story makes you feel good.

The important part, first, is figuring out the question. At least, that's what I think.

The important part, at least for me was in accepting that some questions, I ain't never going to have an answer for.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is NOT obfuscation. I have lived with this for over 9 months now, and studied it extensively (though I am not a physician or scientist). There are variants of GBS (AIDP, AMAN and others) that behave differently, but they have all been studied in a disciplined manner, and the effectiveness of treatment has been established.

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

He stated that was not what he said. He only stated in essence, that mountains have come and gone. Then you accused him of not understanding geology and trolling.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again.

Who gets to decide whether trust is 'well earned?"

We already went over that, didn't we? a well earned trust is demonstrable. If you can only demonstrate it to yourself then it is not well earned. It is also repeatable. Events that only affect some people positively clearly do not count. Then one has to do all kinds of cherry picking.

For example the force it takes to move a spring is repeatable and measurable. Not so much for matters of faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course.

You wrote:



Please explain what book you are referring to, who wrote it, what 'simple fact' you are referring to, why that 'fact' should be considered to be so, and why the length of a refutation (book length or 300 word blurb) affects the validity of that 'fact.

(looking)

Yep, I think that covers it. That's what I didn't understand. Your aid in figuring it out, if you can do it in a manner other than ad hominem fallacies, would be appreciated.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is NOT obfuscation. I have lived with this for over 9 months now, and studied it extensively (though I am not a physician or scientist). There are variants of GBS (AIDP, AMAN and others) that behave differently, but they have all been studied in a disciplined manner, and the effectiveness of treatment has been established.

Here's just one source: http://www.kumc.edu/Documents/neurology/041814 Grand Rounds.pdf

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.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

However, just because something cannot be falsified, it does not mean that it's not true or does not exist.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

How God did it, is begging the question.

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

Whether, without being able to validate the truth of it, it's all about whatever story makes you feel good.

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.

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

The important part, at least for me was in accepting that some questions, I ain't never going to have an answer for.

Well, that's true.

At least, not yet.

 

[dianaiad]

We already went over that, didn't we? a well earned trust is demonstrable.

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?

If you can only demonstrate it to yourself then it is not well earned. It is also repeatable. Events that only affect some people positively clearly do not count. Then one has to do all kinds of cherry picking.

For example the force it takes to move a spring is repeatable and measurable. Not so much for matters of faith.

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.