(December 28, 2018 at 8:46 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

(December 28, 2018 at 9:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post?  Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I never asserted that I would provide evidence.  Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence.  His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.

To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively.  If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable.  If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.

(December 28, 2018 at 9:36 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You seem to like to cling to logical fallacies.  I never claimed that I would provide any evidence.

Nice sidestep with the fallacy thingie.

Why the bitching about standards, if you wont present anything? Bitching for bitchings sake? Or is it just the good ole "i wont tell you, because you wont belive it anyway" schtick?
If you wont provide any, do you have any? If you dont have any, do you believe?

(December 28, 2018 at 9:36 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I've stated I would consider it if there was some established criteria for determining it.  So far, nothing.  As such, I have no obligation.
I have no requirement to fulfill your demands.  Start using your head dude.

...and now you are just doubling down (again). I have no demands. I have just said i would expect your evidence to be be really, really awesome, if you had any.
I am not demanding, i am asking. You are free not to put your $ where your mouth is. Dont shift the blame for your inabilities or unwillingness to somebody else.

So what psychological need do you have complaining about other peoples standards for acceptance, while not intending to present any evidence yourself? Could it be the need to lower anyone elses bar, or at least pretend its a low as yours, so you can stop being so intellectually dishonest about your unwarranted belief?

(December 28, 2018 at 9:38 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 8:46 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

I would add that things become scientifically testable when they can be detected with something other than the human brain.

(December 28, 2018 at 8:46 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 8:36 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, those are functions of our sensory system. The brain them processes the information from our senses. And yes, of course, the senses can be fooled: our senses do not pick up perfect information and the subsequent processing is frequently 'best possible guess'. But that is precisely why we look at all sensory modalities, make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses. In other words, we use the scientific method.

That this doens't seem amenable to a 'supernatural' is *your* problem, not mine. For me, it just means that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

So back to the pressing question.  What would you consider to be evidence?

If you're locked it to something as being an "incoherent concept", then there would also be no point since you've already come to a conclusion.

It's not a "problem" for me, because I'm just as content as to not provide evidence if what said evidence would have to be isn't clearly defined.  If it is defined, then it's worth my consideration to possibly come up with evidence, but I can't know that until you clarify.

No, the scientific method can be used to analyze and test any observed patterns whatsoever. There is no a priori restriction to some 'natural world'. In fact, the order is exactly the opposite: the natural world is that for which the scientific method works.

I already gave what I would consider to be evidence. i am also not 'locked into' the concept of a supernatural being incoherent. I have simply never seen a coherent definition of the concept.

It is a problem for you because the scientific method can apply to *any* observations and *any* patterns found from such observations. So, for science to be unable to study a subject, there has to be *no* observable patterns and *no* way to test those patterns. At that point, I wonder what it means to even make a claim that there is something there to study.

---

(December 28, 2018 at 9:45 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 9:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post?  Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I never asserted that I would provide evidence.  Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence.  His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.

To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively.  If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable.  If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.

A claim made without evidence can be discarded as nonsense without evidence.

(December 28, 2018 at 9:38 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 8:46 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

(December 28, 2018 at 9:59 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 9:38 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

Prove the supernatural is even a thing, then we'll talk.

(December 28, 2018 at 10:05 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 9:59 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

Prove the supernatural is even a thing, then we'll talk.

Thanks. On the basis of your statement, I have no reason to attempt to.

(December 28, 2018 at 9:45 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 9:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post?  Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I never asserted that I would provide evidence.  Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence.  His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.

To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively.  If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable.  If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

(December 28, 2018 at 9:59 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 28, 2018 at 9:38 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

And why should we regard that website as the last word on the scientific method?

Instead, why not look at the method itself and how generally applicable it is? Well, maybe because it would lead to a conclusion you don't like.