What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[ChainBreaker]

Of course that is not an explanation. It is the admission of ignorance. There are cancer cases when the tumor vanishes, and the doctors have no explanation for it. But none of them has the audacity to claim that a “miracle” happened.

.

Why would they say a miracle happened? It’s not their job to determine a cause beyond what their method is capable of revealing, and neither is their silence on the matter a limitation on what can be said through other modes of knowledge; it’s merely reflective of the limitation on their particular method of investigation.

If God came down and cured a victim in front of a doctor, the same doctor would still have to give an admission of ignorance because his method of investigation cannot reveal what has happened. But still if God has come down and cured somebody then that is what happened. A Limit on method is not necessarily the same thing as a limit in what we can know to be true.

 

[Bahman]

What you are talking about? :bounce:

The scientific method is based on few columns: observation, conjecturing, fitting the observation to the best certainty. Of course they cannot find the last digit, infinity precise, hence the work of God would be always hidden.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would they say a miracle happened? It’s not their job to determine a cause beyond what their method is capable of revealing, and neither is their silence on the matter a limitation on what can be said through other modes of knowledge; it’s merely reflective of the limitation on their particular method of investigation.

If God came down and cured a victim in front of a doctor, the same doctor would still have to give an admission of ignorance because his method of investigation cannot reveal what has happened. But still if God has come down and cured somebody then that is what happened. A Limit on method is not necessarily the same thing as a limit in what we can know to be true.

Makes sense to me.

The question now becomes why would anyone impose a methodological restriction on ontological reality, especially since that methodological restriction only helps to sort out what we observe and says nothing, in itself, about what we can know and how we ought to act or make decisions, which are, arguably far more important that getting our observations straight, no?

Just trying to keep my eighty-eights straight.

youtu.be/cCR1KDxAnZ4

 

[Hee_Zen]

Why would they say a miracle happened? It’s not their job to determine a cause beyond what their method is capable of revealing, and neither is their silence on the matter a limitation on what can be said through other modes of knowledge; it’s merely reflective of the limitation on their particular method of investigation.

If God came down and cured a victim in front of a doctor, the same doctor would still have to give an admission of ignorance because his method of investigation cannot reveal what has happened. But still if God has come down and cured somebody then that is what happened. A Limit on method is not necessarily the same thing as a limit in what we can know to be true.

Oh, it would be so easy to prove a miracle. God could simply turn on every communication gadget, override the scheduled daily program on every television and radio channel and take over all the computer screens (smart phones included), and make the following announcement which would be heard in every listener’s mother tongue:

“On next Sunday (date provided) at exactly 12 o’clock noon GMT everyone who has any bodily infirmity, illness, deficiency or malady will be cured for exactly one hour. Deaths which would happen during that time will be postponed. After the one hour expires, the previous problems will re-emerge and deaths will occur as scheduled. This is not a test. See you next Sunday. I repeat, this is not a test. Your Lord, The Almighty God.”
I think that would be pretty convincing.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Makes sense to me.

The question now becomes why would anyone impose a methodological restriction on ontological reality, especially since that methodological restriction only helps to sort out what we observe and says nothing, in itself, about what we can know and how we ought to act or make decisions, which are, arguably far more important that getting our observations straight, no?

Just trying to keep my eighty-eights straight.

youtu.be/cCR1KDxAnZ4

The problem is not that the doctor refuses to admit a miracle through his particular mode of knowledge. The problem is that people assume that other modes of knowledge are by definition invalid in relation to one particular method. This is when people think that there is only one way of knowing an object. It is a bias for a particular mode of knowing. When scientists express this bias it is called scientism. This bias is generally used by atheists as an excuse to be skeptical against that which would otherwise be a reasonable position to hold.

On the other hand some modes of knowing are far more suitable to a particular application than others. For example, if i want to know how a computer works then simply saying that God done it holds no epistemological value and therefore i have a right to reject the god done it theory insofar as that particular context is concerned. The same is true in regards to understanding how the universe works.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is only a **quantitative **difference, not a **qualitative **one. As I said to Al, the caricature is designed to **enhance **the problems and inconsistencies of a given stance.

My your views on “caricatures” certainly have morphed and evolved - positively, I might add - over the past few days.

Above, caricatures have become precise and useful for enhancing and highlighting, but below a caricature is only a blunt instrument for drawing large quantities of blood and causing ignominious and unspeakable piles of refutable stuff to build up under carpets.

This is the cheapest shot on the block. If you cannot refute it, declare it to be a “caricature” and sweep it under the rug. His post was sarcastic, for sure, but it cuts to jugular of the problem.

We are making progress, it seems, although, again you have to admit agency plays a large role in how caricatures are viewed in your eyes.

My calling something a “caricature” is tantamount to a heinous crime on my part, but your doing so, ipso facto, makes that “caricature” legitimate and enlightening to all.

Of course, that is only a qualitative and not a quantitative difference, so no real harm, there, right?

 

[Hee_Zen]

The problem is that people assume that other modes of knowledge are by definition invalid in relation to one particular method.

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

What other modes of knowledge? Tell me, do you need the scientific method when it comes to knowing that you exist?

Obviously not. Different methods apply to different questions. Now i might be spit-balling here but maybe, just maybe, there are other examples of knowledge where the scientific method does not apply…

 

[Bahman]

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

There does not exist any epistemology method which could absolutely separate true claim from false claim. Something is partially true within one regime and completely wrong within another regime.

 

[MPat]

Sure… but that does not mean that I claim omniscience. If there is compelling evidence, I am willing to reconsider.

Or, more accurately, you think you are willing to reconsider. I don’t think we can actually test that…

But anyway, what prior probability would you assign to miraculous explanations?

Sorry, that is something YOU said, not I. I can think of many possible scenarios and experiments which would provide compelling evidence that you are right and I am wrong. Of course all of them would be “testing God”, which is not permissible.

So, can you give some examples?

Actually, the purpose of the tests is to see what does the evidence show. Let the chips fall where they may. If they support the hypothesis, our confidence will grow. If they don’t support it, the hypothesis must be discarded or modified. To be even more precise, even one negative result will disqualify the hypothesis.

I’m sorry, but that is a completely wrong description of statistical tests.

Let’s look at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statistical_hypothesis_testing&oldid=637884900#Interpretation : "If the p-value is not less than the required significance level (equivalently, if the observed test statistic is outside the critical region), then the test has no result. The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion. (This is like a jury that fails to reach a verdict.) ".

Or at itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35.htm : “Similarly, if the sample size is small, a difference that is large in engineering terms may not lead to rejection of the null hypothesis. The analyst should not just blindly apply the tests, but should combine engineering judgement with statistical analysis.”.

I’m afraid that you are confusing “statistical tests” with “scientific method”… Perhaps you should learn a little more about them…

I consider it a “cop-out”. One asks for a “favor” from God, and if it so happens that favor seems to get granted, then the supplicant will praise God for it. If the favor is not granted (which is 99.9999…% of the time), then the supplicant will say: “it was against God’s will”. That is why the supplicative prayers are supposed to include the phrase: “if it be thy will” - to give an “excuse” to God to hide above the clouds. But the “Prayer intentions” sub-forum shows that God IS being treated like a “vending machine”.

I have asked you what exactly, in your opinion, that “vending machine” means. “I consider it a ‘cop-out’.” is not an answer.

Also, you are supposed to argue with a position your opponents have, not the position that you would like them to have. So, disproving Catholicism is not as easy, as you wish it was. That’s your problem, not ours.

And complaining about “cop-outs” (that is, things that make disproving Catholicism hard) will not help.

I have no idea what you mean here. I simply pointed out that there is no ethical problem with checking out the trustworthiness of a “witness”.

No, in that sentence you have said that it wouldn’t be a"double blind experiment", if you knew about it:

First of all, if I would be notified that I am being tested, then the experiment would not be double blind any more.

And I am saying that God, being omniscient, will know about the experiment. Thus no double blind experiment is possible. Is that clear?

 

[Al_Moritz]

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

And round and round and round and round and round we go again…

Of course, your naturalism is not based on the scientific method. It may be based on an extrapolation from science, but it is not a scientific extrapolation, it is not something that could be done within the domain of science proper. It is metaphysics. In some earlier post on this board you conceded yourself that naturalism is a philosophical view.

 

[MPat]

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

So, how have you scientifically verified the claim that scientific method is the only good one…?

If you have, I would like to see the paper.

If you have not, I guess that we have found another source of knowledge. I hope that would be Philosophy, since the alternative is “making things up when that is convenient”…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, it would be so easy to prove a miracle. God could simply turn on every communication gadget, override the scheduled daily program on every television and radio channel and take over all the computer screens (smart phones included), and make the following announcement which would be heard in every listener’s mother tongue:

“On next Sunday (date provided) at exactly 12 o’clock noon GMT everyone who has any bodily infirmity, illness, deficiency or malady will be cured for exactly one hour. Deaths which would happen during that time will be postponed. After the one hour expires, the previous problems will re-emerge and deaths will occur as scheduled. This is not a test. See you next Sunday. I repeat, this is not a test. Your Lord, The Almighty God.”
I think that would be pretty convincing.

Sure, but that would be tantamount to using what amounts to traumatic blunt force where very delicate and fine surgical methods are called for, instead.

I accept the fact that you require God to smack you upside the head with a four by four before you will be convinced about anything,

On the other hand I grant that freely allowing God to finely and deftly remove, alter and create in the universe with the unparalleled precision and loving dedication of the little old women lacemakers of Burano is at least as warranted as your requirement that he forcefully apply brute force between your eyes before you will allow that he is capable of anything at all.

Now, of course, I freely admit, that the material (me) that God has to work with tends to get knotty, unravel itself and is coarse to work with, but also admit that he is relentless, kind and loving in much the same way as those women are with the delicate lace they work.

 

[Hee_Zen]

What other modes of knowledge? Tell me, do you need the scientific method when it comes to knowing that you exist?

I experience myself every second of my life. That is as “scientific” as it gets.

Obviously not. Different methods apply to different questions. Now i might be spit-balling here but maybe, just maybe, there are other examples of knowledge where the scientific method does not apply…

Obviously yes. Of course there are other areas where the “true/false” dichotomy does not apply, for example “tastes” and other subjective phenomena (De gustibus non est disputandum). But as soon as a true/false dichotomy occurs, the only way to decide is to verify/falsify the claim. So how do you decide if a claim about the supernatural is true or false? Be specific, please.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Or, more accurately, you think you are willing to reconsider. I don’t think we can actually test that…

You are always welcome to call me a liar or a misguided idiot. Or you can convince God to bring forth something that would allow me to reconsider, and then we could put this question to rest. I already asked God, but it looks like that I am in his “bad graces”, because I get no answer. Maybe he will listen to you, though I would not bet the farm on it.

But anyway, what prior probability would you assign to miraculous explanations?

Many zeros after the decimal point and then a one.

So, can you give some examples?

I did present one, in this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12605508&postcount=601

I’m sorry, but that is a completely wrong description of statistical tests.

I happen to be a math professor, who lectured probability theory and mathematical statistics for several decades. So, I would venture to say that I have more than a cursory knowledge about the subject.

I have asked you what exactly, in your opinion, that “vending machine” means. “I consider it a ‘cop-out’.” is not an answer.

It was followed by a detailed explanation.

Also, you are supposed to argue with a position your opponents have, not the position that you would like them to have. So, disproving Catholicism is not as easy, as you wish it was. That’s your problem, not ours.

The plethora of supplicative prayers clearly shows that those Catholics believe that God IS a vending machine.

No, in that sentence you have said that it wouldn’t be a"double blind experiment", if you knew about it:

And I am saying that God, being omniscient, will know about the experiment. Thus no double blind experiment is possible. Is that clear?

Well, the word “omniscient” is not actually defined in a coherent manner. But be as it may, even if the subject knows about being tested, there are ways and means of countering that knowledge. And if the subject is smart enough to circumvent the procedure, he is STILL a cheater if he does.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Of course, your naturalism is not based on the scientific method. It may be based on an extrapolation from science, but it is not a scientific extrapolation, it is not something that could be done within the domain of science proper. It is metaphysics. In some earlier post on this board you conceded yourself that naturalism is a philosophical view.

Obviously. And there is no reason why I should amend it. You only miss the most important point. Metaphysics without epistemology is empty speculation. Only a proper epistemological method can help metaphysics to be become “respectable”. Now the next objection is usually: “but you cannot substantiate the epistemological method by using it on itself!”. Not directly of course, but indirectly most definitely. Every time we use the “verify / falsify” epistemological method, we verify that it leads to true propositions. And while it does not “prove” its veracity, it tells us that it is a useful method.

However, as always, I am open to see something alternative. Do you have a competing, different epistemological method which consistently leads to true propositions? Of course if you try, you will immediately run into the roadblock of separating the true propositions from the false ones. And without the “verify / falsify” method you are in a hopeless position.

So, how have you scientifically verified the claim that scientific method is the only good one…?

I never claimed that its is the ONLY one. I ASKED for alternative ones, and there is STILL no reply. I am getting somewhat desperate. You guys (and maybe gals) keep putting words into my mouth, which I never uttered. That is most unfortunate, because it is serious impediment on getting somewhere.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I experience myself every second of my life. That is as “scientific” as it gets. .

Do you? i don’t know that but I don’t consider my self irrational for thinking that you do exist. Before you can even justify science you have to begin with a metaphysical world veiw.

Obviously yes. Of course there are other areas where the “true/false” dichotomy does not apply, for example “tastes” and other subjective phenomena (De gustibus non est disputandum). But as soon as a true/false dichotomy occurs, the only way to decide is to verify/falsify the claim. So how do you decide if a claim about the supernatural is true or false? Be specific, please.

Perhaps the constructs of science is subjective phenomena to. The point is science cannot telll you everything and at some point you have to rely on other modes of knowing.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Oh, it would be so easy to prove a miracle. God could simply turn on every communication gadget, override the scheduled daily program on every television and radio channel and take over all the computer screens (smart phones included), and make the following announcement which would be heard in every listener’s mother tongue:

“On next Sunday (date provided) at exactly 12 o’clock noon GMT everyone who has any bodily infirmity, illness, deficiency or malady will be cured for exactly one hour. Deaths which would happen during that time will be postponed. After the one hour expires, the previous problems will re-emerge and deaths will occur as scheduled. This is not a test. See you next Sunday. I repeat, this is not a test. Your Lord, The Almighty God.”
I think that would be pretty convincing.

This would not be scientific proof of a miracle.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Sure, but that would be tantamount to using what amounts to traumatic blunt force where very delicate and fine surgical methods are called for, instead.

So what? The question was if there is any method to convince a non-believer about God’s existence. I gave you one which would be convincing to all the “hard-hearted” and evil atheists. By the way I am still waiting to be enlightened about the ways and means to prove a “negative”. Please don’t treat me like a mushroom! I want to know.

 

[Hee_Zen]

This would not be scientific proof of a miracle.

Oh, it could be repeated every other week, to make it observable and testable. Easy as a breeze.