Polyphemus wrote on Apr 6
th, 2024 at 11:49pm:
mothra wrote on Apr 6
th, 2024 at 11:22pm:
Polyphemus wrote on Apr 6
th, 2024 at 11:15pm:
mothra wrote on Apr 6
th, 2024 at 11:01pm:
Polyphemus wrote on Apr 6
th, 2024 at 10:53pm:
Mothra, are you equating science with logical positivism? Logical positivism as far as I am aware was just one philosophical take on how science proceeds or rather should proceed.
Obviously not. I am correctly attributing the relegation to the absurd of that which cannot be scientifically verified. The verification principle ... as described by Super Nova and his equating the unverified to those of flat earth principles.
I didn't see him doing that. He looked to me as if he were supporting Popper's view of science.
What do you understand by "scientifically verified" and do you distinguish it or not from the "verification principle" of the logical positivists?
What do you understand by the "scientific process" and why do you think its inadequate to determining the truths of the universe? What other ways have you got in mind?
Would you like to ask me any more questions? Would you like more time to further your list?
Scientifically verified generally means reproducible, no? Thus far we have verified absolutely zilch about the wider universe ... it's almost all theory.
And the scientific process is, in it's absolute essence, a further exploration into a subject or subject matter. It's asking questions, and setting about trying to answer them. There are those that foolishly think if something is unverified, it cannot be true. I strongly disagree. You?
No, I don't think it reduces merely reproducibility, although that's a part of it. There's also testing a theory. For example, Eddington testing Einstein's prediction concerning light bending near massive bodies like the sun.
There's also seeing how it meshes with other accepted theories of the world. I mean Einstein's General Relativity doesn't mesh with Quantum Mechanics. The first is the best we've got on the world at large and the second is the best on what we got at the subatomic level. Scientists already know we haven't got a complete and integrated picture of the universe and it's a work-in-progress.
In any case, what passes tests today might fail tomorrow.
So, I'd go further than you and say that what is scientifically verified and passes our tests is no guarantee that we have the truth of how the universe is.
However, this gets me back to asking you what other ways do you have in mind that may be better than science in unraveling the mysteries of the universe.
Any scientist worth their salt would not claim that even a proven theory is immutable. This is one of the most important advantages science has over religion; the adaptivity to accommodate new information when it becomes available.
Religion and proponents of scientism would point to this as a weakness of course. I see it very much as a strength.
But you are splitting hairs ... there is no point to testing a theory if one does not want to find answers that add to the body of work. It is poor science that does it in isolation. And reproduction is the most accepted way in which to accomplish this. It "proves" a theory .. although one must accept that what we understand leads to deeper questions that require further analysis. Again, science wins out of religion on this.
Yet science has provided us with no definitive proof regarding the universe or consciousness. A magnitude more questions are asked than answered. Yet many, atheists spring to mind, play science like a trump card to dismiss religion. Religion plays the ineffable to counter.
I find this mid path interesting.
I do not claim to be a proponent, just that i respect the ownership of ambiguity of it.
Forum
Pages: 
New theory on God could spark new religion (Read 6691 times)
