Basics of Science?

[skepticalbip]

The bigger problem for religionists and those who defend of faith-based beliefs and/or reject scientifically supported ideas is their hypocrisy and internal inconsistency with which they accept or reject the products of evidence-based reasoning. Faith is the definitional antithesis of evidence-based reasoning. Thus, the plausible accuracy of faith-based beliefs or the inaccuracy of scientifically supported ideas can only be argued for by rejecting the validity of evidence-based reasoning as a basis for increasing the probable accuracy of ideas. To do this is to reject not only all of science, history, and every consensus idea of every intellectual discipline outside of religion, but also to reject all of one's own ideas and those of people around them that result from formal or informal reasoning about the implications of empirically observed events (which is all science really is). Every religionist engages in such reasoning (however flawed) on an almost constant basis, and most of their ideas are the result of this and not of faith. By doing this, they demonstrate implicit acceptance of the superiority of the epistemology of science over that of faith and religion, revealing that any explicit arguments they make to the contrary are just post hoc dishonest rhetoric to allow themselves to violate the principles of reasoned thought that they themselves typically adhere to, but have motivation to violate for particular ideas, especially when the objective accuracy of those ideas is not directly relevant to their well being. The reason that most of the "faithful" abandon faith for evidence-based reasoning when being accurate is a life or death situation is because deep down they know that faith has no validity in discerning the objective truth.

Plus it can only be argued by rejecting the validity of beliefs of all other religions, which, in itself, isn't a problem unless used in an attempt to validate the beliefs of another religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

what does that "2" symbol represent? what does that little "+" thingie mean? How is that "The Basic"?

This is the post that says the most.

And I should add that her foundation isn't a three letter word called god. It's a belief in a three letter word called god.

If she's able to take that three letter word, examine it, observe it, make predictions about its behavior, work it into a few formulas and scientific experiments, just basically quantify it, she gets my vote for the next nobel prize.

You're not out of your league, you're talking to a kid in kindergarten who thinks Santa is real.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The bigger problem for religionists and those who defend of faith-based beliefs and/or reject scientifically supported ideas is their hypocrisy and internal inconsistency with which they accept or reject the products of evidence-based reasoning. Faith is the definitional antithesis of evidence-based reasoning. Thus, the plausible accuracy of faith-based beliefs or the inaccuracy of scientifically supported ideas can only be argued for by rejecting the validity of evidence-based reasoning as a basis for increasing the probable accuracy of ideas. To do this is to reject not only all of science, history, and every consensus idea of every intellectual discipline outside of religion, but also to reject all of one's own ideas and those of people around them that result from formal or informal reasoning about the implications of empirically observed events (which is all science really is). Every religionist engages in such reasoning (however flawed) on an almost constant basis, and most of their ideas are the result of this and not of faith. By doing this, they demonstrate implicit acceptance of the superiority of the epistemology of science over that of faith and religion, revealing that any explicit arguments they make to the contrary are just post hoc dishonest rhetoric to allow themselves to violate the principles of reasoned thought that they themselves typically adhere to, but have motivation to violate for particular ideas, especially when the objective accuracy of those ideas is not directly relevant to their well being. The reason that most of the "faithful" abandon faith for evidence-based reasoning when being accurate is a life or death situation is because deep down they know that faith has no validity in discerning the objective truth.

Or you can just ask her to have her god pick up a piece of paper.

 

[Underseer]

Building up on previous knowledge is a great way to generate hypotheses, but evidence is the only arbiter of truth in science.

Even in physics where every law and theory is an equation derived from math, you still have to use evidence to support your claims or else no one will give your hypothesis the time of day.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anything can be offered as evidence. Ultimately believers will state that the universe and all its pieces are proof of a god. That pretty much covers everything as far as offering evidence. But it's the quality of the evidence that is important, at least to someone who is looking for information so to make a decision. Most people come to a decision based on feelings and convenience, not evidence in the sense intended.

My brother recently discovered what Mormonism is. He thought it was absolutely wacky. When I mentioned that he goes into a special building every seventh day and turns special food into an invisible creature, and then eats the creature, all enabled by repeating certain words and going through specific behaviors with a man in the front dressed in special clothing he didn't seem to get it. His practice was quite normal and orthodox in his view but not so for what Mormons teach.