Scientific Method is useless in religion and or philosophy?

[paarsurrey1]

Scientific Method is useless in religion and or philosophy. Isn't it? Please
Regards

[bluethread]

That depends on what one wishes to know about religion and philosophy. Science can verify the current efficacy of the practices in a controlled environment that follow from a philosophy. It can not verify the past, or things that do not occur in a controlled environment. Those things have to be done by historical or legal means. That is why archeology is a science and anthropology is a philosophy, psychiatry is a science and psychology is a philosophy, medical research is a science and medical practice is a philosophy, behavioral research is science and sociology is a philosophy, etc.

Bull. Science verifies the past everyday. Please refrain from making claims that you have discussed previously on this site that you cannot possibly support.

If science could not verify the past, I fail to see how forensics is ever used to convict anybody. If science could not verify the past, then that 8 minute old sunlight that you saw today shouldn't verify that the Sun still existed....8 minutes ago.

Forensic is a combination of science and reason. Science is used to test the state of things at the time of the test. Then, one checks the historical records of previous tests and speculates on correlations based on statistical analysis. Forensics is not like the programs on TV. Very few things are proven conclusively by forensics.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

You say that like "statistical analysis" isn't an important part of science itself, but something to be considered along side science. Why?

[Kenisaw]

False logic. You cannot prove that something does NOT exist.

Then I claim that a herd of mile-high elephants roams free in Kansas.

Great. Prove it. If you can't, then there is no reason to think your claim is even remotely plausible, right?

And I claim that a second sun, bigger and brighter than Sol, has an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, right in with the asteroid belt.

Great. Prove it. If you can't, then there is no reason to think your claim is even remotely plausible, right?

If something does NOT exist, there is no evidence or data to examine.

If X would entail evidence if it existed, then the very lack of evidence is evidence that X does not exist. The fact that nobody notices mile-high elephants in Kansas is compelling proof that they aren't there.

I'll let you work out for yourself what is the evidence against a second sun in the asteroid belt.

Since I'm not claiming it I don't have to work out anything. You assemble the empirical data and evidence that supports it, and then convince me the claim is true. If you can't, then I don't need to pretend it's rational at all.

Without data and evidence you cannot declare, with 100% confidence, that something does not exist.

That's absurd. What kind of data would strengthen the case against an omnipotent god who can't defeat iron chariots?

You can never say that there is no evidence for something until you know everything. We obviously don't know everything at this time. So there could still be evidence or data that we have yet to gather and observe that supports something, like leprechauns existing for example. As of right now there is no reason to think leprechauns are real creatures, because there is no evidence for them. But we cannot say, with 100% confidence, that they cannot exist because it's remotely possible that we haven't found the evidence yet.

It's the same reason so scientific theory is ever closed. You always assume there could be more information in the future that will need to be considered. Do we think the theory of gravity will be overturned? No, but it's still technically a scientific theory.

Hope that helps you understand.

[Kenisaw]

That depends on what one wishes to know about religion and philosophy. Science can verify the current efficacy of the practices in a controlled environment that follow from a philosophy. It can not verify the past, or things that do not occur in a controlled environment. Those things have to be done by historical or legal means. That is why archeology is a science and anthropology is a philosophy, psychiatry is a science and psychology is a philosophy, medical research is a science and medical practice is a philosophy, behavioral research is science and sociology is a philosophy, etc.

Bull. Science verifies the past everyday. Please refrain from making claims that you have discussed previously on this site that you cannot possibly support.

If science could not verify the past, I fail to see how forensics is ever used to convict anybody. If science could not verify the past, then that 8 minute old sunlight that you saw today shouldn't verify that the Sun still existed....8 minutes ago.

Forensic is a combination of science and reason. Science is used to test the state of things at the time of the test. Then, one checks the historical records of previous tests and speculates on correlations based on statistical analysis. Forensics is not like the programs on TV. Very few things are proven conclusively by forensics.

Please check in the court records in your local town the number of times someone is convicted of a crime without eyewitness testimony of the actual crime. It happens all the time Blue.

Science is used to test the state of things. If that thing (like a fossil) is preserved over time, then we can see the evidence left behind, in the past, right now. To claim we only observe "now" is patently false.

[wiploc]

False logic. You cannot prove that something does NOT exist.

Then I claim that a herd of mile-high elephants roams free in Kansas.

Great. Prove it. If you can't, then there is no reason to think your claim is even remotely plausible, right?

I'd have sworn that I corrected that botched post. The claim that there is NOT such a herd is what I would defend. That is a negative claim which is easily proven.

And I claim that a second sun, bigger and brighter than Sol, has an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, right in with the asteroid belt.

Great. Prove it. If you can't, then there is no reason to think your claim is even remotely plausible, right?

Again, I should have written that I claim that there is NOT such a sun. Another negative claim easily proven.

If something does NOT exist, there is no evidence or data to examine.

If X would entail evidence if it existed, then the very lack of evidence is evidence that X does not exist. The fact that nobody notices mile-high elephants in Kansas is compelling proof that they aren't there.

I'll let you work out for yourself what is the evidence against a second sun in the asteroid belt.

Since I'm not claiming it I don't have to work out anything. You assemble the empirical data and evidence that supports it, and then convince me the claim is true. If you can't, then I don't need to pretend it's rational at all.

I think I got this part right, but you were still confused by the parts I messed up above. We're in agreement here.

If such a sun existed, we would see it, and it would perturb asteroids and planets, and Sol would orbit around it rather than vice versa. Since these things are not observed, we know that such a sun does not exist. This is a provable negative claim.

Without data and evidence you cannot declare, with 100% confidence, that something does not exist.

That's absurd. What kind of data would strengthen the case against an omnipotent god who can't defeat iron chariots?

You can never say that there is no evidence for something until you know everything.

We may have a disagreement here, but it's probably just a trivial linguistic disagreement.

We obviously don't know everything at this time. So there could still be evidence or data that we have yet to gather and observe that supports something, like leprechauns existing for example. As of right now there is no reason to think leprechauns are real creatures, because there is no evidence for them. But we cannot say, with 100% confidence, that they cannot exist because it's remotely possible that we haven't found the evidence yet.

I'm with you.

It's the same reason [no] scientific theory is ever closed.

You can't gather evidence for a contradiction. It is false that Jehovah is both possible to be seen and not possible to be seen. That theory is closed.

You always assume there could be more information in the future that will need to be considered. Do we think the theory of gravity will be overturned? No, but it's still technically a scientific theory.

And it will always be a theory, because it is an explanation. The law of gravity is that things fall down. The theory of gravity is that things fall down because all matter attracts all other matter proportionally to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

You can't say that something isn't a theory (explanation) because it has been proven.

Hope that helps you understand.

Thanks.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 15 by H.sapiens]

There are many places where science has corrected religion, there are none where religion has corrected science.

For instance, please.
Regards

If religion says the world is flat, science says it is closer to round. If religion says that one god are three and three gods is one, science points out that those are different numbers, incompatible. Where religion says an omnipotent god can't defeat iron chariots, science says that is just stupid. When religion says Jehovah is perfectly just but also merciful, science points out the contradiction. Where religion says the world is four or six or ten thousand years old, science points out that religion is off by orders of magnitude. Where religion says, "I don't understand something, therefore the explanation must be magic," science points out that that's not an explanation at all.

@paarsurrey1, here's a passel more:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... fic_errors

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/bible.htm

and that's just the first four of about 15,600,000 results. Once you've sorted out the first million of so, please get back to us.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 15 by H.sapiens]

There are many places where science has corrected religion, there are none where religion has corrected science.

The truthful religion has following articles of faith:

Unity of God
His Angels
His Books
His Prophets
The Last Day
Divine Decree

https://www.alislam.org/

Science has changed none of them. Did it, please?
Regards

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 47 by paarsurrey1]

Start out by trying to get the religionists to agree on any of those things, you can't even do that. But that was not the question, you are ignoring the issue and obfusticating, science does not pretend the supernatural is anything but a pretense.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

You say that like "statistical analysis" isn't an important part of science itself, but something to be considered along side science. Why?

That is because statistical analysis is not fact, but probability, and can include nonscientific components, such as opinion. Statistics can include scientific information, but the analysis of that information and probability are rational processes. The larger the sample the more accurate they are, the smaller the sample, the less accurate they are. Science does not tell one whether or not something happened in the past. Statistic analysis doesn't even do that. Statistic analysis uses compiled information, some scientific, some not, and provides a probability that something may or may not have happened in the past, or will happen I the future.

[bluethread]

Please check in the court records in your local town the number of times someone is convicted of a crime without eyewitness testimony of the actual crime. It happens all the time Blue.

Science is used to test the state of things. If that thing (like a fossil) is preserved over time, then we can see the evidence left behind, in the past, right now. To claim we only observe "now" is patently false.

That is because court convictions are about what is presented to a judge and/or jury and how it is presented. The judge and jury then make judgement call regarding reasonable doubt. One loophole is known as jury nullification, where the jury finds for or against in spite of the evidence.