Experiental v evidential or experientiary v evidentiary

[konrad]

I am trying a new tack here, as I have mentioned in my first posts.
Rather than going onto an outright attack of spiritual beliefs in
genral and religion in particular, I'd like to define what it is we
are dealing with.

Bear with me for a while:

All of us (warning: generalisation for the sake of argument) hold a
number of beliefs which we accept as true, and which we believe would
stand its ground to some extent.

Belief is not just a religious thing.
We believe in freedom, democracy, science, love, etc.
Some of us believe in a god, others lack such a belief, or even
frankly "dis"believe in it (also a belief)

Belief is not an unsubstantiated thing, per se. It can be founded on
very substantive evidence or reasoning.
The question is _why_ we believe what we believe.
Some of us base our beliefs on evidence.

Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
success of this method is well-known and respected.

Based on evidence observed and repeated under controlled
circumstances, we can make certain pronouncements regarding the nature
of the universe. Why then, do people look for more? Why do they
intentionally ignore facts and phenomena hitting them in the face and
continue to base their life and their decisions on groundless
beliefs? Why is evidence or the lack thereof not enough?

I lack a belief in a god because I can see no evidence of such a force
in nature, history or my own life. Others continue believing in a god
despite the lack of evidence, or because they have had an
"experiental" interaction. I do, however have a vague belief that
there is more to the universe than what we can observe and falsify
through evidentiary experiment. The power of the human psyche, the
effect that "unscientic" "spiritual" and emotional drivers can have on
our lives and the future of mankind is obvious and therefore worth
acknowledging.

The _effects_ of experiences during church meetings, meditations, or
pagan ritual are _very_ real to the people experiencing them, and very
powerful, despite them being "baseless" in an evidentiary way.

This is the second part of my musing:

Personal experience, despite how compelling, despite how many times
repeated by other individuals, just does not make the grade as a
truthful foundation. Why do we dismiss experiental belief? Why do we
not trust millions of believers who have had the same or very similar
experiences when interacting with "God"?

Why is belief based on evidence OK, and belief based on experience not?

[random]

On Jul 13, 12:27 pm, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am trying a new tack here, as I have mentioned in my first posts.
> Rather than going onto an outright attack of spiritual beliefs in
> genral and religion in particular, I'd like to define what it is we
> are dealing with.
>
> Bear with me for a while:
>
> All of us (warning: generalisation for the sake of argument) hold a
> number of beliefs which we accept as true, and which we believe would
> stand its ground to some extent.
>
> Belief is not just a religious thing.
> We believe in freedom, democracy, science, love, etc.
> Some of us believe in a god, others lack such a belief, or even
> frankly "dis"believe in it (also a belief)
>

I'll write a more detailed response later, I just want to emphasize
something important: The word belief has two different meanings that
are often mixed up.
When you say "I believe in God" you actually mean "I believe God
exists"
On the other hand, when used with terms like Democracy, "I believe in
Democracy" is actually "I believe Democracy is a good method".
With the second example, the existence is never an issue and usually
taken for granted.

Each of the cases require a completely different type of evidences.

[konrad]

Good point.

I look forward to your detailed response, because my questions still
need comment and/or critique, despite the fact that "belief" has two
meanings. Many people do not make the distinction, and even if they
do, their experiental belief is as valid to them as evidentiary belief
may be to others.

> > Why is belief based on evidence OK, and belief based on experience not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 5:27 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> success of this method is well-known and respected.

The scientific method is indeed wonderful. But it has signficant and
noteworthy limitations. For example, as one professor notes:

"Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of
the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions
for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words,
science has limitations.

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer
our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they
present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to
the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue
of science.

The three areas of limitation are

* Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of
course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one
ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the
element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper
with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to
scientifically determine value.

* Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

* Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
"above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
outside their reach.

In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have
forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will
publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence
of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science
could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this,
since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.

So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his
or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've
stepped outside of these limitations."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 5:27 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> success of this method is well-known and respected.

For another view of the limitations of science, consider the points:

"1. The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the
five senses.
2. The scientific method is limited to the present.
3. The scientific method is limited to telling us “how” a process
works, not “why.”
4. The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).
5. The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the
unique."[1]

and their conclusion:

"To suggest that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of
naturalism, and that empirical observation is the “court of ultimate
appeal,” is to err. Such an attitude ignores other numerous,
significant avenues of human endeavor, as well as additional means of
coming to knowledge and truth. It also misuses and abuses the
scientific method which, as great as it is, never was intended to be a
panacea."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1996

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 5:27 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> success of this method is well-known and respected.

On the lighter side, consider yet another articulation of science's
limitations:

"it is also understood that figurative language and speech may not
always necessarily be scientifically accurate and correct. Yet they
may be quite meaningful in the context that they are used. Our daily
life need not be scientifically correct in all details.

As an example, consider the statement of an optimist who looks at a
half-empty glass and proclaims, “the glass is half-full.” A pessimist
sees the same glass and says, “the glass is half-empty.” A
dialectician who is obsessed by philosophical correctness, may say,
“the empty space in the glass has the same volume as the filled
space.” The dialectic statement may be more accurate but is indeed
‘ugly’ in the perspective of our routine usage of language. The other
two statements are reflective of the human temperament and attitudes
while the dialectic statement is neutral and devoid of any pathos.

As another example, consider Yogi Bera’s saying, “Ninety percent of
baseball is mental, the other half is physical.” The numbers in this
saying do not neatly add up but we understand exactly what Yogi meant.
In addition, it has a lighter side to it, which is the spice of life
and at the same time opens a window on the persona that Yogi embodied.

People like me know Yogi Berra only from his sayings, which have now
become proverbial like “When you come to a fork in the road, take
it”."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.chowk.com/articles/7314

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 5:27 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> success of this method is well-known and respected.

For a point of view that is very close to my own, consider:

" Our modern civilization is ill-suited to meet the deep-seated
spiritual needs of its inhabitants. Science, limited to the observable—
the measurable—simply cannot provide us with all we need to know about
ourselves. Philosophical speculations are woefully inadequate
substitutes for divinely revealed knowledge. Adding to our difficulty
in correctly understanding ourselves is the spiritual deception,
described in Revelation 12:9, that affects the whole world.

What is so little understood today is that our minds are subject to
spiritual laws that are as inexorable as the physical laws scientists
have discovered. Although we cannot see gravity, none of us doubts its
existence. Just as gravity affects and governs the actions of all
physical objects, so do spiritual laws affect and govern our actions
and behavior. We cannot transgress God's spiritual and moral laws
without incurring serious penalties.

The scientific method has other limitations. Qualities that have
neither weight nor spatial dimensions—such as love, vanity, hatred,
the appreciation of beauty, the inspiration of a poet or even the
aspirations of a scientist—cannot be scientifically ascertained.

Though science can and does contribute knowledge to the mystery of
man, only God can tell us who we are, why we are and what is our
destiny. His Word, the Bible, fills in the missing dimension in human
knowledge."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/bsc/bsc3/limitscience.htm

[konrad]

Brock

I will attempt to discuss your four posts in one:

To summarise: You are effectively saying that science cannot explain
spirituality. (you are using a lot of words and various quotes to say
that, but that is the gist of it.)

In spite of the fact that spirituality is not in the realm of science,
your belief in it is as strong as if it was proven by a professor at
MIT.

Why? What exactly gives you that certainty?

Your trust in Scripture?
A spiritual experience?
A personal meeting with the Creator?
Your belief in the veracity of any other article of faith?

I am trying to get behind the absolute faith that theists have in
something they have no evidence for. I studied a certain "New Agey"
thinker of the early 20th century who made it his mission to practice
spiritual "science" and claimed that he succeeded by "experimenting
spiritually" Effectively, this meant meditating until certain
experiences were had, and then repeating the "meditation" to establish
whether these experiences repeated themselves every time.

He claimed success, and invited others to follow the same path to the
same experiences.
Whenever someone did not have the same experience, he did not concede
the fallibility of spiritual science, but rather the fallibility of
the "experimentor" - you did it wrong, were not ready, or got confused
by astral distractions.

I see a great similarity between this and any other religion or
spiritual conviction where experience is the yardstick.

Do you have a better explanation for me?

[random]

Finally I have some time to write.

Like I mentioned before, there are different meanings for the word
"belief". For this post, assume I'm not talking about trust or
morality, but about faith in a true/false objective statements.

On Jul 13, 12:27 pm, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am trying a new tack here, as I have mentioned in my first posts.
> Rather than going onto an outright attack of spiritual beliefs in
> genral and religion in particular, I'd like to define what it is we
> are dealing with.
>
> Bear with me for a while:
>
> All of us (warning: generalisation for the sake of argument) hold a
> number of beliefs which we accept as true, and which we believe would
> stand its ground to some extent.
>
> Belief is not just a religious thing.
> We believe in freedom, democracy, science, love, etc.
> Some of us believe in a god, others lack such a belief, or even
> frankly "dis"believe in it (also a belief)
>
> Belief is not an unsubstantiated thing, per se. It can be founded on
> very substantive evidence or reasoning.
> The question is _why_ we believe what we believe.
> Some of us base our beliefs on evidence.
>
> Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> success of this method is well-known and respected.
>

While the scientific methodology is the best to confirm the truth of
something, it is only rarely used in real life. More often we use
either faith or a combination of knowledge and belief, which we call
"experience".
It is not an accurate system, but it requires much less time and
effort, and while it will fail more often, we will apply it to things
where the margin of error isn't that important.
When the situation is more demanding, this is when we use a better
methodology.

For example, if you ask me about where a certain friend of mine was
today, I'll probably base it on experience and say he was at work. If
the same question is required for a police investigation, when an
alibi is needed, I will not be sure enough about his said location
unless I actually saw him.

We base most of our life on experience, faith and partial knowledge,
and there is nothing wrong with it. But there is only one case I can
think of, when men base such an important part of their life on the
inaccurate tool, and that is religion.
With the exception of religion, I can't think of a single example of
someone basing his morals and important life decisions that directly
effects him on faith alone.

> Based on evidence observed and repeated under controlled
> circumstances, we can make certain pronouncements regarding the nature
> of the universe. Why then, do people look for more? Why do they
> intentionally ignore facts and phenomena hitting them in the face and
> continue to base their life and their decisions on groundless
> beliefs? Why is evidence or the lack thereof not enough?
>

I don't remember the technical name for this term, but once you base a
belief the human brain justifies that choice, and it will be a lot
harder to change that belief.

The scientific methodology helps us not only by being more accurate,
but also by having "safety nets" to avoid basing knowledge on faith
alone.
Unfortunately, without understanding of this methodology, some will be
doomed to live with faith despite evidences.
Most of the times it's harmless, sometimes it isn't. But the harm
relates more to lack of liberalism than to the actual thing you
believe in.

> I lack a belief in a god because I can see no evidence of such a force
> in nature, history or my own life. Others continue believing in a god
> despite the lack of evidence, or because they have had an
> "experiental" interaction. I do, however have a vague belief that
> there is more to the universe than what we can observe and falsify
> through evidentiary experiment. The power of the human psyche, the
> effect that "unscientic" "spiritual" and emotional drivers can have on
> our lives and the future of mankind is obvious and therefore worth
> acknowledging.
>

I don't know if "acknowledging" is the right word, I'd use "worth
investigating" instead.

For example, we have no evidences of life outside earth. Despite the
lack of evidences, it is still an area worth investigating, as long as
you really investigate and not fully commit yourself to a specific
belief (leading you to walk with tinfoil hats in fear of mind reading
aliens)

> The _effects_ of experiences during church meetings, meditations, or
> pagan ritual are _very_ real to the people experiencing them, and very
> powerful, despite them being "baseless" in an evidentiary way.
>

No doubt about that.
This is one of the main reasons why I rarely bother to convince
someone not to believe in the general concept of God.

> This is the second part of my musing:
>
> Personal experience, despite how compelling, despite how many times
> repeated by other individuals, just does not make the grade as a
> truthful foundation. Why do we dismiss experiental belief? Why do we
> not trust millions of believers who have had the same or very similar
> experiences when interacting with "God"?
>

Because most of the events are people who associate a common feeling
to what they already believe in.

> Why is belief based on evidence OK, and belief based on experience not?

Human experience can be too easily "corrupted" by beliefs, group
psychology, and personal habits. The "safety nets" I mentioned earlier
help to prevent it.
Like I said in the beginning, it is good for some thing, but I don't
think it's good enough to base human knowledge of physics, nor is it
good enough to believe a certain moral code is better because it said
so in a book.

[random]

On Jul 13, 3:00 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 5:27 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Based on observed phenomena, often experimentally "verified" or
> > tested. This way is commonly known as the scientific method. The
> > success of this method is well-known and respected.
>
> The scientific method is indeed wonderful. But it has signficant and
> noteworthy limitations. For example, as one professor notes:
>
> "Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of
> the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions
> for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words,
> science has limitations.
>
> There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer
> our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they
> present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to
> the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue
> of science.
>
> The three areas of limitation are
>
> * Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
> scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
> prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?"

You also can't use logic to make coffee. That's not a limitation,
that's just knowing when to apply which tool.
Science does not handle subjective concepts like "pretty", but terms
like "exist" are certainly in the scientific domain.

Rethinking about it, you can even use science for subjective things.
The best example is the use of psychology and understanding of the
human brain for commercial reasons.
By using the right words, colors and locations, your subconscious is
"blasted" with information leading you to a specific choice while
maintaining the illusion of choice.
Of course it's not perfect, but it works.

> And of
> course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one
> ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the
> element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper
> with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to
> scientifically determine value.

Actually, no tool can help you here.
The problem in this example is the ambiguity of the word "value".
Define exactly what "value" is, and math (with combination of other
fields) is the exact tool you need.

>
> * Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
> good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
> science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
> solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
> is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
> or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
> social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
>

No argument here.
At the end, it all comes down to human based definitions.

But again, no one claimed that science is the appropriate tool for
EVERYTHING. Just the best tool for objective knowledge.

> Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
> consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
> humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
>
> * Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
> supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
> "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
> only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
> outside their reach.

Let's say I have the supernatural ability to convert water to wine.
Let's say I am doing it in a way that science cannot explain, and
let's even say it can never be explained (problematic term, but we'll
accept it for the sake of argument).
While it cannot explain the supernatural, it is still the best tool to
confirm that I actually have this power.

If you do not use an objective tool to at least confirm an
unexplainable fact, than what you have is simply a way to dodge the
need of presenting evidences.

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 10:31 am, konrad <darnok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock
>
> I will attempt to discuss your four posts in one:
>
> To summarise: You are effectively saying that science cannot explain
> spirituality. (you are using a lot of words and various quotes to say
> that, but that is the gist of it.)

The limitations are on the scientific method. So, for example, the
question, "does God exist?", as there is no device available with
which to detect or measure "God's existence", there is no scientific
basis on which to conclude "God does not exist".

Quoting a translation of Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."[1]

On matters that exceed its limitations, science is silent. :)

This is quite important. Science (and the scientific method) is a
wonderful tool and an excellent process for learning things. But,
like all other tools, the tool can be abused and the good name it has
can be co-opted and mis applied. The mis applications must be
identified and refuted. :)

> In spite of the fact that spirituality is not in the realm of science,
> your belief in it is as strong as if it was proven by a professor at
> MIT.
>
> Why? What exactly gives you that certainty?

At a higher level (and a great epistemological question for those who
like that stuff) is:

What gives any one any certainty about anything?

Its a profitable discussion, but not necessarily a topic that everyone
is interested in, so I'll footnote my short answer if you prefer[3],
if you want to go further down this epistemological path thats fine
too. :)

> Your trust in Scripture?
> A spiritual experience?
> A personal meeting with the Creator?
> Your belief in the veracity of any other article of faith?
>
> I am trying to get behind the absolute faith that theists have in
> something they have no evidence for.

I have the testimony of the Bible. Certainly not "no evidence". :)

Of course, in your personal belief you may choose to disqualify the
testimony for the Bible. But do not confuse "evidence that does not
personally convince you (konrad)" with "no evidence". Consider a
wording that I believe is more accurate, such as:

* "I (konrad) am trying to get behind the absolute faith that
theists[2] have in something that I (konrad) don't accept their
evidence for."

I think a statement like that is much more accurate than this:

> I am trying to get behind the absolute faith that theists have in
> something they have no evidence for.

Because the original statement implies a position that believers
generally (and I specifically) do not hold, as if I was stating a
position like:

"I, Brock, have an absolute faith in something I have no evidence
for."

Which is certainly not my position. I have the evidence of the
testimony of the Bible. :)

> I studied a certain "New Agey"
> thinker of the early 20th century who made it his mission to practice
> spiritual "science" and claimed that he succeeded by "experimenting
> spiritually" Effectively, this meant meditating until certain
> experiences were had, and then repeating the "meditation" to establish
> whether these experiences repeated themselves every time.
>
> He claimed success, and invited others to follow the same path to the
> same experiences.
> Whenever someone did not have the same experience, he did not concede
> the fallibility of spiritual science, but rather the fallibility of
> the "experimentor" - you did it wrong, were not ready, or got confused
> by astral distractions.
>
> I see a great similarity between this and any other religion or
> spiritual conviction where experience is the yardstick.

I don't articulate that experience is the ultimate yardstick that
establishes Christianity. My position is that the propositional
truths of the Bible, the "Word of God", is the "essence" that precedes
"existence". It is the source of knowledge for first principles that
humankind should use to make value judgments.

> Do you have a better explanation for me?

The ability to discern between competing beliefs is crucial. But if
you profess an inability to distinguish between the person's position
above from my position, for example, that would not be a limitation of
my position, rather it would be a limitation of your ability to tell
the difference.

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus#Proposition_7
[2] BTW, my personal preference is to be referred to as a "Christian"
or "believer in Christ"
[3] if you just want the short answer and skip the epistemological
discussion around this topic, I'd be glad to cite the Westminster
Confession and note that my position relies upon the divine revelation
of the person of God's Holy Spirit.

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:32 PM, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
>> scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
>> prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?"
>
> You also can't use logic to make coffee. That's not a limitation,
> that's just knowing when to apply which tool.

That's a limitation. :)

>> * Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
>> good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
>> science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
>> solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
>> is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
>> or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
>> social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
>>
>
> No argument here.
> At the end, it all comes down to human based definitions.

Humankind is not the measure of all things.[1]

> But again, no one claimed that science is the appropriate tool for
> EVERYTHING. Just the best tool for objective knowledge.

But it is not sufficient to establish all objective knowledge, because
of its notable, important and significant limitations. :)

>
>> Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
>> consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
>> humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
>>
>> * Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
>> supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
>> "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
>> only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
>> outside their reach.
>
> Let's say I have the supernatural ability to convert water to wine.
> Let's say I am doing it in a way that science cannot explain, and
> let's even say it can never be explained (problematic term, but we'll
> accept it for the sake of argument).
> While it cannot explain the supernatural, it is still the best tool to
> confirm that I actually have this power.
>
> If you do not use an objective tool to at least confirm an
> unexplainable fact, than what you have is simply a way to dodge the
> need of presenting evidences.

Its not a "dodge" to point out the limitations of the scientific
method in establishing truth. In fact, its an important step in
identifying its mis application, scientism[2]. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] rejecting Protagoras' famous position: "Man is the measure of all
things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are
not, that they are not" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[random]

Out of politeness, it will be nice if instead of smiley faces, you
will avoid snipping parts of my post, even if you don't intend to
answer them.

On Jul 14, 12:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:32 PM, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> * Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
> >> scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
> >> prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?"
>
> > You also can't use logic to make coffee. That's not a limitation,
> > that's just knowing when to apply which tool.
>
> That's a limitation. :)
>

Only if you claim to be able to answer everything.

> >> * Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
> >> good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
> >> science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
> >> solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
> >> is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
> >> or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
> >> social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
>
> > No argument here.
> > At the end, it all comes down to human based definitions.
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.[1]
>

Maybe not, but it is humanity that makes the rules throughout all
history.

> > But again, no one claimed that science is the appropriate tool for
> > EVERYTHING. Just the best tool for objective knowledge.
>
> But it is not sufficient to establish all objective knowledge, because
> of its notable, important and significant limitations. :)
>

Which did not apply to objective knowledge.
The snipped examples should have helped here.

>
>
>
>
> >> Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
> >> consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
> >> humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
>
> >> * Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
> >> supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
> >> "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
> >> only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
> >> outside their reach.
>
> > Let's say I have the supernatural ability to convert water to wine.
> > Let's say I am doing it in a way that science cannot explain, and
> > let's even say it can never be explained (problematic term, but we'll
> > accept it for the sake of argument).
> > While it cannot explain the supernatural, it is still the best tool to
> > confirm that I actually have this power.
>
> > If you do not use an objective tool to at least confirm an
> > unexplainable fact, than what you have is simply a way to dodge the
> > need of presenting evidences.
>
> Its not a "dodge" to point out the limitations of the scientific
> method in establishing truth. In fact, its an important step in
> identifying its mis application, scientism[2]. :)
>

Please answer in related to the example I provided here.

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:34 PM, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Out of politeness, it will be nice if instead of smiley faces, you
> will avoid snipping parts of my post, even if you don't intend to
> answer them.

Your original post is not affected, and is part of the record for all
to see, so I'm not concerned; my replies are quite polite; they are
simply direct, focused and specific. And the smiley faces are
certainly not impolite. :)

>> > No argument here.
>> > At the end, it all comes down to human based definitions.
>>
>> Humankind is not the measure of all things.[1]
>>
>
> Maybe not, but it is humanity that makes the rules throughout all
> history.

The Bible testifies that in addition to humankind, God is also
extremely involved and active in history.

>> > But again, no one claimed that science is the appropriate tool for
>> > EVERYTHING. Just the best tool for objective knowledge.
>>
>> But it is not sufficient to establish all objective knowledge, because
>> of its notable, important and significant limitations. :)
>>
>
> Which did not apply to objective knowledge.

Science's limitations are objective and absolute.

>> > Let's say I have the supernatural ability to convert water to wine.
>> > Let's say I am doing it in a way that science cannot explain, and
>> > let's even say it can never be explained (problematic term, but we'll
>> > accept it for the sake of argument).
>> > While it cannot explain the supernatural, it is still the best tool to
>> > confirm that I actually have this power.
>>
>> > If you do not use an objective tool to at least confirm an
>> > unexplainable fact, than what you have is simply a way to dodge the
>> > need of presenting evidences.
>>
>> Its not a "dodge" to point out the limitations of the scientific
>> method in establishing truth. In fact, its an important step in
>> identifying its mis application, scientism[2]. :)
>
> Please answer in related to the example I provided here.

>> > Let's say I have the supernatural ability to convert water to wine.

Jesus Christ has that very power. The Bible testifies to it. But you
have no demonstrable scientific method for determining that objective
fact. But the inability to establish this fact via scientific means
does not affect the truth of Christ's ability, it is simply a
limitation of the scientific method to adequately measure it.

Regards,

Brock