Indeed. Or to put it another way:

(August 9, 2018 at 11:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to Santa, it seems that you are coming to a conclusion before you examined any evidence, not because of it. You have to deny the evidence a priori.

Actually unbiased position would be to start from preposition that there is no reason that Santa or God exist; while biased people start from conclusion that there is god and then try to "explain" everything with that biased notion.

(August 9, 2018 at 11:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps, scientists might not agree, but it is a matter of logic, not science (which only shows that they need some philosophy courses.

Yeah like Empedocles, Heraclitus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Susan Neiman, Arthur Schopenhauer, Noam Chomski, Sam Harris, Eric Hoffer etc.

Quote:As to Santa, it seems that you are coming to a conclusion before you examined any evidence, not because of it. You have to deny the evidence a priori.

Nope the smart thing to do is to say there is no reason to believe this and stick with that till evidence is presented .That is the unbiased position .

Quote:Perhaps, scientists might not agree, but it is a matter of logic, not science (which only shows that they need some philosophy courses.

Rubbish this is a question of science no matter how your side tries to re frame it

Anything that has an effect on the Universe, however tiny, falls directly under the purview of science almost by definition.

(August 10, 2018 at 3:03 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 11:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to Santa, it seems that you are coming to a conclusion before you examined any evidence, not because of it. You have to deny the evidence a priori.

Actually unbiased position would be to start from preposition that there is no reason that Santa or God exist; while biased people start from conclusion that there is god and then try to "explain" everything with that biased notion.

I would agree, if you are saying, that you are not starting out making a claim either way.

Quote:

(August 9, 2018 at 11:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps, scientists might not agree, but it is a matter of logic, not science (which only shows that they need some philosophy courses.

Yeah like Empedocles, Heraclitus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Susan Neiman, Arthur Schopenhauer, Noam Chomski, Sam Harris, Eric Hoffer etc.

Just to note, but this comment from me was specifically about proof by contradiction and denying this logic. . I wasn’t sure if this response was.

---

(August 10, 2018 at 4:24 am)Cyberman Wrote: Anything that has an effect on the Universe, however tiny, falls directly under the purview of science almost by definition.

To clarify, what I mean is that science is not always the best tool to tell you everything. While it does create a sound wave (physical effect) you are not going to use a scientific study to tell you about a conversation I had the other day. And for many events, science may be able to offer corroborating evidence, bit cannot tell you as much as direct evidence. What started this discussion (the Cosby case) science did not have a major if any role in coming to a conclusion.

---

(August 10, 2018 at 3:16 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:As to Santa, it seems that you are coming to a conclusion before you examined any evidence, not because of it. You have to deny the evidence a priori.

Nope the smart thing to do is to say there is no reason to believe this and stick with that till evidence is presented .That is the unbiased position .

Quote:Perhaps, scientists might not agree, but it is a matter of logic, not science (which only shows that they need some philosophy courses.

Rubbish this is a question of science no matter how your side tries to re frame it

Ok, but skepticism is not making a claim, which is what I was referring to. You can lack belief, but that is a neutral position, not taking a positive or negative stance. Otherwise it is pseudo skepticism. 

How is proof by contradiction a scientific question?  While science may utilize philosophical principles it is dependant  on logic, not the arbiter of it.

Quote:Ok, but skepticism is not making a claim, which is what I was referring to. You can lack belief, but that is a neutral position, not taking a positive or negative stance. Otherwise it is pseudo skepticism. 

Which was not lady's point 

Quote:How is proof by contradiction a scientific question?  While science may utilize philosophical principles it is dependant  on logic, not the arbiter of it.

Sigh nope

(August 10, 2018 at 6:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 10, 2018 at 4:24 am)Cyberman Wrote: Anything that has an effect on the Universe, however tiny, falls directly under the purview of science almost by definition.

To clarify, what I mean is that science is not always the best tool to tell you everything. While it does create a sound wave (physical effect) you are not going to use a scientific study to tell you about a conversation I had the other day. And for many events, science may be able to offer corroborating evidence, bit cannot tell you as much as direct evidence. What started this discussion (the Cosby case) science did not have a major if any role in coming to a conclusion.

Of course you wouldn't use science to tell you about a conversation you had, but by the same token you wouldn't use that as a criticism of a 'limitation' of science - any more than dismissing an egg timer as useless because it can't read your mind or whatever. Science is a tool which, properly applied, can not only discern the nature of reality but is the single best method we have of doing so.

(August 10, 2018 at 10:23 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(August 10, 2018 at 6:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: To clarify, what I mean is that science is not always the best tool to tell you everything. While it does create a sound wave (physical effect) you are not going to use a scientific study to tell you about a conversation I had the other day. And for many events, science may be able to offer corroborating evidence, bit cannot tell you as much as direct evidence. What started this discussion (the Cosby case) science did not have a major if any role in coming to a conclusion.

Of course you wouldn't use science to tell you about a conversation you had, but by the same token you wouldn't use that as a criticism of a 'limitation' of science - any more than dismissing an egg timer as useless because it can't read your mind or whatever. Science is a tool which, properly applied, can not only discern the nature of reality but is the single best method we have of doing so.

I agree, and that is my point. Science is a tool. And is a part of the evaluation process if it has something to say on the matter. It’s not the only tool of epistemology and doesn’t always get the highest priority automatically. It may, but other times it may make a lesser or even no contribution. All depends on what it makes evident, the assumptions and reasons for the conclusion. I’m not critisizing science, only scientism. I might only quibble with your definition in the use of the word reality. My conversation was a part of reality, and as we agreed, science is not the appropriate tool to tell us of that reality.

Quote:I agree, and that is my point. Science is a tool. And is a part of the evaluation process if it has something to say on the matter. It’s not the only tool of epistemology and doesn’t always get the highest priority automatically. It may, but other times it may make a lesser or even no contribution. All depends on what it makes evident, the assumptions and reasons for the conclusion. I’m not critisizing science, only scientism. I might only quibble with your definition in the use of the word reality. My conversation was a part of reality, and as we agreed, science is not the appropriate tool to tell us of that reality.

Apologist BS

Yep. He went for deepity, landed in word salad.