Let’s see. Do I agree with this statement from that site? “Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity.”
I agree that science cannot prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Can science refute the existence of supernatural entities? No. Not completely. But at some point when legitimate attempts keep finding nothing, you move on.
Oh, and everyone knows that invisible unicorns are not pink. They are more like a clear color.
Oh, and everyone knows that invisible unicorns are not pink. They are more like a clear color.
that was funny!
Thanks. I try.
I find the term “personal empirical evidence” to be a bit suspicious. I have heard of “personal experience” and I have heard of “empirical evidence” and the two are generally at odds with one another. I’m not sure what “personal empirical evidence” is, but this isn’t my first rodeo, so to speak, and this is the kind of “muddling of things” one tends to do before presenting “evidence” which isn’t entirely “empirical”. At least, that has been my experience in the past.
Do remember, empirical evidence is one thing, but the conclusions you draw from it are a completely different thing. For it to be empirical evidence supporting the thing you claim then it would have to be in a form which would cause someone who had never heard of the thing that you claim to come to the same conclusions you did. For example, “proof of your specific God” would have to cause a person who had never heard of your specific God to come to a conclusion which perfectly described your specific God, without any preconceived notions of what or who that God was. It is very, very common for people to jump to their favored conclusions when they simply can’t explain something in any other way (or refuse to accept any other explanation), even though their favored conclusions are not conclusions an unbiased person would ever come to.
A note on science not being able to study the supernatural, this is not actually a limitation of science. Scientists could not study my claim that all cartoon characters are actually real, living being existing in another universe because there is no evidence or observation to support that. Without some basis in reality to start from no hypothesis can be formed, only wild guesses. Science exists to answer the question, “How can this be explained?” For an unevidenced claim the answer is simple. “You haven’t shown me anything which needs explaining yet.” Without observation there is nothing to study. You cannot study a blind claim. However, once you have empirical evidence, observation to study, something to start with, then it moves out of the realm of the supernatural. Then it’s a “natural phenomena” which you can study. So you see, it’s not that science is limited when it comes to the supernatural, it’s just that there has never been anything offered to actually study.
So you will easily know if you actually have “empirical evidence” once you release it. If you do then you will usher in a whole new branch of science. It will cease to be “supernatural” and will become a brand new branch of natural study. If you actually have empirical evidence to support a supernatural claim then that will remove any limitations science once had for studying it. The only reason this “limitation” exists is because there is nothing to study, a thing which you are about to change. So once you release your “empirical evidence”, a whole new branch of science will be born and you will go down in history as being the one who moved it from the realm of the supernatural to the natural, which science can absolutely study. Perhaps you’ll want to start considering your eventual title now, just so something stupid like “father of ghost studies” isn’t chosen for you. It should probably start with “father of” or “mother of” or whatever descriptive, founder-esque word you prefer.
@Widdershins:
Thanks for your clarification, you are right!
I will soon present my empirical evidence, as evidence from others is not considered in this forum.
I do not use the word ghost, but the word spirit!
thanks and see you soon!
Is the scientific method the only sure way to acquire knowledge?
Are there other safe ways to gain knowledge?
That question is really loaded. Scientific method is the chosen, best currently known way to attain scientific knowledge. There are other types of knowledge. Facts, for example, are knowledge. The scientific method does not get you facts. Instead, facts are the starting point which scientific method uses to gain scientific knowledge.
So it really depends on what you mean by “knowledge”. For scientific knowledge, yes, scientific method is what there is. That’s not saying that there isn’t something better yet to be discovered, but scientific method works pretty well.
Is the scientific method the only sure way to acquire knowledge? Are there other safe ways to gain knowledge?The scientific method is just that, a method. It works because it requires impartiality, replicability and is always open to improvements. I'm aware of no other method that does that, and if there is I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Widdershins hit on the same problem I have with how you worded your post. Your promise of “…personal empirical evidence” is suspicious because it’s not a thing, it’s more of an oxymoron.
That is exactly right and the claim is made more suspicious by then asking if there might be, perhaps, some other way to “gain knowledge”, which I see translated as “What I have is not scientifically valid. Can you please lower the standard for me?”
Yeah, there are different roads to knowledge.
For instance, the scientific method may not be the best way to acquire “carnal” knowledge. (although nerds seem to be doing better with the women these days)
My evidence is empirical can you believe it! because it interacts with matter!
There was as a post saying you will present empirical evidence, then this. What is it I’m supposed to believe? I don’t see any evidence.
There was as a post saying you will present empirical evidence, then this. What is it I’m supposed to believe? I don’t see any evidence.
hang on ! I will present soon.
My guess, if I were pressed to make one, is that you have misinterpreted the results of some flawed test. There have been many, many scientific studies into the paranormal and all have returned squat. You see, even if something doesn’t exist, the claims can be investigated scientifically. You start with observation, after all. No results just means you can’t form any hypotheses to eventually string together into theory with no positive results. I would be pleasantly surprised if “just some guy” found evidence of some new mystery of the universe.
What is religion? Religion is an attempt to describe as accurately as possible humanity’s relation to the universe and ultimate reality. The more we know about the universe around us and how we evolved to become the sentient creatures we are, the more religion (in it’s most general sense) must and should change and evolve to accommodate our deepening understanding of our place in the cosmos. Religion is rooted in history, custom and orthodoxy and is highly resistant to change and reconsideration. Religion has more to do with man, power, and social influence than God. Old, antiquated definitions of what constitutes belief are no longer adequate to meet the growing skepticism of the modern age. God is real and powerful and most importantly accessible to any one with curiosity and an open mind. Religion must and will change and evolve to remain a living force for good. A new theology is being born in our time and it will own the future. It will ultimately free itself from the outmoded anachronisms of past religious dogma and orthodoxy. It relies on science to provide compelling evidence for the existence of a transcendent supreme being. This new, evolving theology will start with a more realistic definition of the word “God” itself. It defines God as a self-created and eternal form of lucid energy whose dominant attribute is love. Forget silly notions of “The garden of Eden” or “Noah’s Ark” or the devil. These things don’t exist and they never have.
I would say that there is plenty of historical evidence to refute that religion is an attempt to describe anything “as accurately as possible”. While there have been some attempts at religious doctrines to be “as accurate as possible” if that were a real goal of religion then they would not reject science which disagreed with them. I think it’s fair to say that “accuracy” is not any sort of prerequisite for religious explanations.
As has been discussed here recently, science can provide no evidence for anything supernatural, and that will never change. If there is ever any evidence for any gods then they can only be described by science using the natural laws to define them, modified to fit the new understanding. It stands to reason that even gods would have rules to follow. One of those rules would likely necessarily be that a being cannot be “self-created”, a ludicrous idea on so many levels. Creation, in this context, requires an intelligence with a purpose and a lot of power. Those thing would have to exist in a god before it could create, and that god would have to exist before it could posses those things. A self creating god may be the silliest concept I’ve ever heard.
Which, I would argue, is more evidence that religion in no way attempts to describe things “accurately”. In fact, I would argue that religion is more likely to describe thing in vague and “mysterious” terms like this, rejecting accuracy altogether for less quantifiable and, thus, unfalsifiable claims.
Why is the scientific method the only sure way to acquire knowledge? Can you explain to me in detail why the scientific method is the only sure way to acquire knowledge? Is the scientific method infallible? Is he not mistaken? doesn’t he miss? does he have limitations? can he evolve?
Is the expression scientific skepticism correct?
Can you explain to me in detail why the scientific method is the only sure way to acquire knowledge?
Steven Pinker recently wrote an article for Skeptic.com. It starts by pointing out that you can’t question reason. If you are questioning if reason works, then you are using reason. If you say reason doesn’t work, you have reasons for why you think that. You can question if we exist and if we can evaluate our own knowledge, those questions are purely philosophical. People in the future might be able to look back and explain how we were irrational, or a more intelligent alien species could say it, but we can’t say it about ourselves now.
No, it’s not infallible, because we are fallible. Science is how we deal with who we are when figuring out what we don’t know.
Why is the scientific method the only sure way to acquire knowledge?Here are two I got off the internet:
The italicized and bolded portion is my doing and highlights the biggest reason the Scientific Method is really the only game in town when it comes to finding out anything about our world and the universe.
- 1. Problem solving: Step-by-step approach consisting of
- (1) identifying and defining a problem
- (2) accumulating relevant data,
- (3) formulating a tentative hypothesis,
- (4) conducting experiments to test the hypothesis,
- (5) interpreting the results objectively, and
- (6) repeating the steps until an acceptable solution is found.
- 2. Sciences: Rigorous, systematic approach, designed to eliminate bias and other subjective influences in the search, identification, and measurement or validation of facts and cause-effect relationships, and from which scientific laws may be deduced.
Flacus, you asked the question as though there are a number of options and you’re looking for the best one. What other options do you have?
empiricism and rationalism.
which one is the most reliable to acquire scientific knowledge?
thanks for the clarification of all of this forum
I am a Brazilian of little culture!