On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:05:37AM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
> You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote.
> Your own words say it: "...science is the *best* way we have of
> understanding and testing reality..." (emphasis added)
No, I understood what you said, it is just wrong.
> Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have
> *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is
> not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific
> method);
If philosophy disagrees with a repeatable scientific experiment,
then philosophy is wrong. Speculation in science is clearly labeled
as speculation ("hypothesis", not knowledge). One does not say "my
hypothesis, even though I have no evidence, IS KNOWLEDGE".
> We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific
> method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence.
If there is not enough evidence presented, convincing beyond a shadow
of a doubt, then the person is found NOT GUILTY, but more precisely,
what is meant is that there isn't enough evidence to reasonably conclude
that guilt exists. And the evidence must not be convincing to a number
of different people -- a single eyewitness account without supporting
hard evidence or establishment of the trustworthiness of the witness
will usually be discounted by the jury (although occasionally it may
not be, I would argue that is a mistake and the people are fooling
themselves). To complete the metaphor you started, if there is not any
evidence for god, then one suspends judgement and does not conclude that
god exists. To do otherwise is unreasonable, or delusional. Perhaps
part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not agree that
unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context.
> Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief.
Therefore, unscientific belief DOES equate to delusional belief. Humans
are very good at fooling themselves and others. Science is the best
way we have to check our knowledge so that we don't fool ourselves. If
science disagrees or is unable to be used on some idea, then that idea
is really not useful knowledge. If something isn't useful knowledge,
but when claims that it IS true (or useful), then it is delusional. The
reasonable conclusion in the absence of evidence is to suspend
judgement, not to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
> > > But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my
> > > original point.
> >
> > I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that
> > cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just
> > semnatics.
>
> No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You
> know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not
> religion. That being the reason for the subject line.
Again, I don't think so. If I've understood what William has said
before, then your statements about the thinking of atheists are
incorrect. Or at least, I think they do not agree with William's
definitions. William, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
> Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done.
True enough.
> You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops.
Why oops? There is no problem there.
> Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is
> the person who says "I don't know if any god exists".
It is not MY standard. Science is everyone's standard. One of the most
useful scientific ideas is that for knowledge to be valid, anyone who
repeats an experiment, anytime, should obtain the same results as anyone
else. That is what makes scientific knowledge high-quality knowledge,
not delusion.
> Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your
> standards, is delusional.
Yes to the first part, yes or no to the second, depending on what
exactly is meant by "believes" in no god. If someone says, "I don't
believe in any god because there is no scientific evidence" then they
are not delusional, they are withholding judgement. If they say, "there
is no evidence for god so I will base my actions on the non-existence
of god" then they are not delusional. In the absence of any evidence,
a reasonable thing to do is to act as if the phenomenon does not
exist. That is not delusional.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
