The brain

[The Valkyrie]

Science isn't like the Bible. You can't just interpret it however you want and expect to be taken seriously.

I interpret most science to mean "Beccs is superior to you all and you must bow down and worship her!"

And medical science to mean, "I have the power of life and death over you. Now, what do you have of any worth?"

[robvalue]

I assume you make this clear to those about to go under your knife

Drich should really stick to unfalsifiable fantasy. Falsifiable claims are weak spots that can be attacked for massive damage. He just doesn't notice when his debate avatar is dead, and he continues to mash on the controller.

[Angrboda]

Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a [i]principle of the uniformity of nature[/i] would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking”
(Einstein, 1954)

[Anomalocaris]

Science isn't like the Bible. You can't just interpret it however you want and expect to be taken seriously.

I interpret most science to mean "Beccs is superior to you all and you must bow down and worship her!"

And medical science to mean, "I have the power of life and death over you.  Now, what do you have of any worth?"

Or science could mean “are you fit enough to survive Beccs”?

[Mystic]

Wow, comprehension problems for real.

He never said he proved it, he said it's as valid as a theory as the mind being the producer as far the evidence goes, and shows why it's possible/plausible.

But when I read the links, there is potential proof, which Drich has not presented and I have to go research.

Drich is saying your assumptions are by looking at things from one perspective with data, when there is other perspectives that go with the data as well, and can have potential proofs, but we all know people are not interested in searching for evidence to see if the alternative theory holds stronger.

That's his point and it's solid, and true.

[Nay_Sayer]

Drich said something fatuous and inane; Film at 11.

[Angrboda]

Wow, comprehension problems for real.

He never said he proved it, he said it's as valid as a theory as the mind being the producer as far the evidence goes, and shows why it's possible/plausible.

But when I read the links, there is potential proof, which Drich has not presented and I have to go research.

Drich is saying your assumptions are by looking at things from one perspective with data, when there is other perspectives that go with the data as well, and can have potential proofs, but we all know people are not interested in searching for evidence to see if the alternative theory holds stronger.

That's his point and it's solid, and true.

Which specific data are you referring to here, Mystic? I don't think anybody has denied that it's possible in theory. If that's his point, well, good on him. I don't think it is, however, and think that you're just launching a dishonest apologia on his behalf. And I would have to disagree that the evidence is equivocal. The brain as producer evidence isn't conclusive, but it's better demonstrated than anything I've seen for the brain as receiver hypothesis.

[Mystic]

Wow, comprehension problems for real.

He never said he proved it, he said it's as valid as a theory as the mind being the producer as far the evidence goes, and shows why it's possible/plausible.

But when I read the links, there is potential proof, which Drich has not presented and I have to go research.

Drich is saying your assumptions are by looking at things from one perspective with data, when there is other perspectives that go with the data as well, and can have potential proofs, but we all know people are not interested in searching for evidence to see if the alternative theory holds stronger.

That's his point and it's solid, and true.

Which specific data are you referring to here, Mystic?  I don't think anybody has denied that it's possible in theory.  If that's his point, well, good on him.  I don't think it is, however, and think that you're just launching a dishonest apologia on his behalf.  And I would have to disagree that the evidence is equivocal.  The brain as producer evidence isn't conclusive, but it's better demonstrated than anything I've seen for the brain as receiver hypothesis.

The point he is making you won't search and look for evidence of the other side, whether there are solid evidence or not. This is not particular to you, but Atheists in general. You (as in you in particular) may research or you may not, but he is showing, that science is not this hard facts thing.  

And that was his point. And yes good on him.

[Angrboda]

Which specific data are you referring to here, Mystic?  I don't think anybody has denied that it's possible in theory.  If that's his point, well, good on him.  I don't think it is, however, and think that you're just launching a dishonest apologia on his behalf.  And I would have to disagree that the evidence is equivocal.  The brain as producer evidence isn't conclusive, but it's better demonstrated than anything I've seen for the brain as receiver hypothesis.

The point he is making you won't search and look for evidence of the other side, whether there are solid evidence or not. This is not particular to you, but Atheists in general. You (as in you in particular) may research or you may not, but he is showing, that science is not this hard facts thing.  

And that was his point. And yes good on him.

Well, if you keep changing what you think was his point was, you'll eventually get it right. As to any lack in the response on the part of atheists, that was thoroughly rebuffed in this very thread. As to science being any "hard facts thing," since he is appealing to science in making his case for the brain as receiver hypothesis, if he were arguing as you say, that would simply make him a hypocrite. Fortunately, he does not appear to have been making any such point, much as you might have wished him to do so in order to comfort your anti-science prejudices.

[Mystic]

You have comprehension issues. Not his or my fault.