Originally posted by Scottish
Just because you see something doesn't make it true.
It means I can reasonably certain it exists. Can you see your hand? Do you doubt it exists? Do you think there is a more
likely explanation for seeing a hand beyond there being, well, a 5 fightered appendage at the end of your arm?
I mean, we are still on the scientific issue of evidence here, aren't we? And science itself has never presumed absolutes - it's never presumed something
is true, but that it is
most likely to be true.
You seem to keep reiterating that scientific investigation - itself an extension of our own sensory perception - assumes absolucy (er, is that a word?
) when it patently doesn't.
Originally posted by Scottish
Well, the obvious answer would be 'faith'.
But I prefer to rely simply on my knowledge that nothing is inherantly right - regardless of how well it works.
That is the scientific perception; nothing is defined as 'right', but most likely. Because to do so (presume it was right) would preclude further investigation. In the case of overwhelming evidence (that sort of includes intangible; because intangible may or may not exist, it's pretty safe to include that as infinity evidence for and infinity evidence against, and ignore it), then it becomes orthodoxy; but it is never considered un-disproveable.
Originally posted by Scottish
I'm implying that before you take Evidence to be Truth, you should examine what made you decide the Evidence was valid in the first place - what defined your criteria for Truth.
I don't take evidence to be 'Truth' - capital T or otherwise - but as, well, evidence pointing towards the
most likely truth. And I consider evidence on the basis of my ability to perceive it, to measure it, i.e. to be able to know it is there.
Originally posted by Scottish
We cannot rely on anything, as we can never reliably assign it an absolute value, and we must bear this in mind when trying to find Truth.
What is 'Truth'? I've never dealt in absolutes; I don't believe there are any universal truths in actuality but I've never claimed to have proof of that because it's transcending the boundaries of an observable universe.
This in itself an important distinction; science works by examining the
observable world; the supernatural is excluded because of its inobservable nature.
(note; I'm defining the supernatural as what can never be observed, thus known to exist, and not as that which is current;y observable but can be postulated to be at a later date, when hypotheses can be tested against it)
Originally posted by Scottish
If something works, use it, but don't keep saying it works when it stops working.
All that our knowledge will ever amount to is a 'best guess'. Never an absolute Truth.
Again, that's all science does. Except it quantifies best guesses with reasoning and evidence.
No-one (supporting the scientific perspective) here has claimed science has provided or intends to provide universal answers, nor that it continues to support insupportable theories.
People may struggle to drop orthodoxy, but that's just human nature to cling to the familiar, not the correct scientific process.
If you're implying science has 'stopped working', I think you'll have to provide some sort of justification for that.
Originally posted by Scottish
You consider Scientific Method to be a tool of Science, when 
, Science is simply the accumulated knowledge of Scientific Method.
So when you try to analyse anything using 'impartial observation', you're subjecting it to the standards of Science. Which is why Religion appears stupid in the eyes of a scientist. It doesn't conform to Scientific Method, so you assume it's Wrong, when it simply isn't Science.
No, I don't. I assume it's (a theory espoused by religion) not as qualified as science, when it's not based upon or even contradicted by observable evidence. Because we can draw
any conclusion based on inobservable evidence because we don't know what that evidence is.
The scientific method, incidentally, is the definition of how to investigate something. It's the evolution of human thought & sense processes for empirical investigation, dating from Ancient Egyptian times (the Elbers Papyrus - 1550BC - contains some evidence of empirical investigation) and more formally from about 5th BC.
Originally posted by Scottish
Again, you're doing the Science thing of assuming things which cannot be observed are Wrong.
You're asking for examples of Religion which conform to Science - and there simply are none. They're an entirely different manner.
I'm not trying to tell you how to view Religion from a Scientific perspective, I'm telling you to stop looking.
Never was looking. Never said that inobservable was wrong. I said it could not be used as a basis for any conclusion, because it's essentially free to be invented to suit.
The only point where religion is viewed from a scientific perspective, is where science - that is, what we can observe and thus know to be happening - and directly contradicts religion. Like Genesis in the Bible.
Originally posted by Scottish
But it assumes Scientific Method to be a measure of current Truth.
It never examines the possibility that the very dependence upon evidence may be a weakness in it's understanding of Truth.
What's the alternative? Just making stuff up?
Science is simple; A + B implies C, where A and B are observable and can be reliably known to be true as a result. Would like a situation where A + B + C implies D, where C is in fact completely unknown 'intangible evidence'? Would that make the conclusion more, or less reliable because it relies on a stated assumption?
And what exactly do you define 'Truth' as being/meaning? Presumably it's important enough for its own capital, and thus special in some way.
If it's the religious aspect of 'Truth' (universal truth, I suppose that would be), then that's entirely aside from science; the supernatural, the inobservable is of no value for investigating the observable universe. What would you suggest we do? I mean, science does already place constraints upon itself; it's not immutable, it relies upon basis and testing to prove events, it works within an observable universe where we can at least know things, and it doesn't presume to be absolute in its conclusions. What would you suggest as a better method for investigating the observable universe than, well, observing it?
