Regarding the Gift

[Zealot]

Stigmatas, cooled embers, grace- such gifts are given to those who prove themselves pure of heart, soul and spirit. The saints are recipients of these and other gifts, but those in league with the Devil also receive gifts- although in their case the gifts are a reward for corruption and not from God. With regard to the saint, divinity touches man and brings him closer to perfection. Meanwhile, he who breathes like the Devil approaches the end of his road to ruin- beyond which there is only misery.

[McCulloch]

So suppose it has succeeded before. What makes you think it'll still succeed if we try it again tomorrow? Next week? Two years from now? Two million years from now?
What basis do you have for assuming that because the scientific method has always succeeded in the past, it will succeed in the future?

So how do you know it won't be completely discarded tomorrow? What rational reason is there, besides testing with the scientific method, to believe in the scientific method?

The key here is rational reasoning. We observe patterns and apply reason. Based on the patterns and the reasoning, we built hypotheses. We test those hypotheses, and revise them according to the results. This is the essence of rational reasoning.

There is something odd about the assumption that because the earth has endured for so long that it will continue to do so in more or less the same way. There's no rational reason to make the connection. You have to operate on faith--the question is, is it faith in God's promise, or just blind faith?

I completely trust in every promise that I know that comes from God. I just doubt that what has been recorded by various humans as promises from God are from God. Yes, I suppose we both have faith. I have faith in the oft repeated cycle of reason, observation, testing and revision. You have faith in the writers of an ancient book. Which type of faith would you characterize as being blind?

[edit for clarity]

[Goat]

*snip*

So suppose it has succeeded before. What makes you think it'll still succeed if we try it again tomorrow? Next week? Two years from now? Two million years from now?

What basis do you have for assuming that because the scientific method has always succeeded in the past, it will succeed in the future?

As a Christian, I have such a basis. God has promised, for example, that as long as the Earth endures, the seasons will continue in regular order.

Do you?

Skyler

Uh, I don't see your point? if it doesn't work, it gets thrown away, or revised.
The scientific method in general has been going through the crucible for 3000 years, although it has been gone through a more rigorous revision since the early 15th century with rationalism. It gets revised to meet with what works. The methods science uses has been refined over the years.

So how do you know it won't be completely discarded tomorrow? What rational reason is there, besides testing with the scientific method, to believe in the scientific method?

Because it is reasonable for me that the way the world works isn't going to change overnight, and the scientific method has a proven track record.

If someone comes up with a different and better way of doing business, then that will be adopted. It has to work better than the methods we
are using now. It has to go up against the success that using the current
methodology gives the people that use it.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and so far, people using the scientific method have had success.

Seasons have been observed and the earth has endured for a lot longer than there was the Christian religion. There is nothing miraculous about that observation.

There is something odd about the assumption that because the earth has endured for so long that it will continue to do so in more or less the same way. There's no rational reason to make the connection. You have to operate on faith--the question is, is it faith in God's promise, or just blind faith?

Well, it certainly less odd than thinking that things will suddenly 'change', or accepting something based on pure conjecture. When someone said 'If I let go of this brick, it will fall to the ground' is much more reasonable to me than if someone said 'If I let go this brick, it will hover there with nothing supporting it', because in my experience, if I see someone let go of a brick, it has always fallen in the past.

[Skyler]

So suppose it has succeeded before. What makes you think it'll still succeed if we try it again tomorrow? Next week? Two years from now? Two million years from now?
What basis do you have for assuming that because the scientific method has always succeeded in the past, it will succeed in the future?

So how do you know it won't be completely discarded tomorrow? What rational reason is there, besides testing with the scientific method, to believe in the scientific method?

The key here is rational reasoning. We observe patterns and apply reason. Based on the patterns and the reasoning, we built hypotheses. We test those hypotheses, and revise them according to the results. This is the essence of rational reasoning.

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

There is something odd about the assumption that because the earth has endured for so long that it will continue to do so in more or less the same way. There's no rational reason to make the connection. You have to operate on faith--the question is, is it faith in God's promise, or just blind faith?

I completely trust in every promise that I know that comes from God. I just doubt that what has been recorded by various humans as promises from God are from God. Yes, I suppose we both have faith. I have faith in the oft repeated cycle of reason, observation, testing and revision. You have faith in the writers of an ancient book. Which type of faith would you characterize as being blind?
[edit for clarity]

I would characterize your faith as "blind" because it's based on, as you mentioned, cyclical reasoning--which isn't allowed by your own definition.

[Goat]

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

You don't know absolutely. You can only go by probability. If you have an idea that you continually try to find different ways to prove false, and keep on testing it over and over again, the probability it will be proven 'false' becomes less and less over time. There might potentially need some modifications with new information, but until it is demonstrated to be false, it is reasonable to proceed as if it was true.

For example, from our experience, it has been shown that jumping off cliffs without a parachute is injures to our well being. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we should not jump off of cliffs. Do you agree with that?

[Skyler]

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

You don't know absolutely. You can only go by probability. If you have an idea that you continually try to find different ways to prove false, and keep on testing it over and over again, the probability it will be proven 'false' becomes less and less over time. There might potentially need some modifications with new information, but until it is demonstrated to be false, it is reasonable to proceed as if it was true.

What makes you think statistics will give accurate results tomorrow, without invoking probability? Because clearly we can't use statistics to prove statistics.

For example, from our experience, it has been shown that jumping off cliffs without a parachute is injures to our well being. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we should not jump off of cliffs. Do you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that. I have a non-circular reason to.

[Goat]

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

You don't know absolutely. You can only go by probability. If you have an idea that you continually try to find different ways to prove false, and keep on testing it over and over again, the probability it will be proven 'false' becomes less and less over time. There might potentially need some modifications with new information, but until it is demonstrated to be false, it is reasonable to proceed as if it was true.

What makes you think statistics will give accurate results tomorrow, without invoking probability? Because clearly we can't use statistics to prove statistics.

For example, from our experience, it has been shown that jumping off cliffs without a parachute is injures to our well being. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we should not jump off of cliffs. Do you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that. I have a non-circular reason to.

Well, so far, the scientific method uses that same reasoning. We have a non-circular reason to keep using it. It works. When it stop working, why, we'll figure somethign else out.

It's very pragmatic. It is used because it works. No need to say 'but but maybe if then'.. since it has been working for hundreds of years.

[Skyler]

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

You don't know absolutely. You can only go by probability. If you have an idea that you continually try to find different ways to prove false, and keep on testing it over and over again, the probability it will be proven 'false' becomes less and less over time. There might potentially need some modifications with new information, but until it is demonstrated to be false, it is reasonable to proceed as if it was true.

What makes you think statistics will give accurate results tomorrow, without invoking probability? Because clearly we can't use statistics to prove statistics.

For example, from our experience, it has been shown that jumping off cliffs without a parachute is injures to our well being. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we should not jump off of cliffs. Do you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that. I have a non-circular reason to.

Well, so far, the scientific method uses that same reasoning. We have a non-circular reason to keep using it. It works. When it stop working, why, we'll figure somethign else out.

But you stake your very life on the unfounded assumption that it will continue to work. That's hardly rational.

[Goat]

But again, what makes you think that just because a hypothesis tested correctly one day, that it will the next day?

You don't know absolutely. You can only go by probability. If you have an idea that you continually try to find different ways to prove false, and keep on testing it over and over again, the probability it will be proven 'false' becomes less and less over time. There might potentially need some modifications with new information, but until it is demonstrated to be false, it is reasonable to proceed as if it was true.

What makes you think statistics will give accurate results tomorrow, without invoking probability? Because clearly we can't use statistics to prove statistics.

For example, from our experience, it has been shown that jumping off cliffs without a parachute is injures to our well being. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we should not jump off of cliffs. Do you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that. I have a non-circular reason to.

Well, so far, the scientific method uses that same reasoning. We have a non-circular reason to keep using it. It works. When it stop working, why, we'll figure somethign else out.

But you stake your very life on the unfounded assumption that it will continue to work. That's hardly rational.

Is it unfounded?? Why should I consider it unfounded? It works, it has worked in the past, and it continues to work, and provide results?

From a pragmatic point of view, if it works, and works well, why shouldn't it keep on working in the future?

To throw away a proven methodology because of some metaphysical nonsense seems insane to me.

For example. Drug companies use it to help develop new drugs, because it is more economical to use that method than not. The Food and drug administration uses the method to try to test for side effects and safety of those same drugs because it helps insure the public safety in the most effective manner.

Why should give up a method that works because of your metaphysical concerns of 'the world's laws might change tomorrow'?

[Skyler]

*snip*

But you stake your very life on the unfounded assumption that it will continue to work. That's hardly rational.

Is it unfounded?? Why should I consider it unfounded? It works, it has worked in the past, and it continues to work, and provide results? [/quote]

From a pragmatic point of view, if it works, and works well, why shouldn't it keep on working in the future?

To throw away a proven methodology because of some metaphysical nonsense seems insane to me.[/quote]

I'm not asking you to throw away a proven methodology. I'm showing you that taking away God throws away that proven methodology.

If the strongest argument you have is "it just works", then that's hardly a foundation. You still haven't answered the question of how you make the connection that because something has worked in the past, it will in the future. You keep dancing around the question.

Dancing is something you scold theists for, goat. Set a good example for us.

Skyler

[McCulloch]

I have faith in the oft repeated cycle of reason, observation, testing and revision. You have faith in the writers of an ancient book. Which type of faith would you characterize as being blind?

I would characterize your faith as "blind" because it's based on, as you mentioned, cyclical reasoning--which isn't allowed by your own definition.

No, my faith is not based on cyclical reasoning. It is based on probability. The principle of probability is that if something can be shown to hold true a very large number of times and false no times, then it is likely that it will continue to hold true. Not absolute sureness but it seems likely. Since that is all the reliable information we've got, we'll have to run with that. I've got the accumulated self-correcting experience of human experience and proven results to support the success of the scientific method.

Your faith is in the writings of ancient prophets, who various humans claim to have been inspired by God. Other humans disagree. What evidence, what proven results does the faith in human prophets bring to the table in comparison?