At this
While I have disagreed with Steve on some things in the past, I have no problem; nor see any problem with a disagreement here, that it should be singled out like this. In this case, just from things which Steve had said before, I didn't comment to him, because I think that we are actually closer together in thinking then you are surmising. I would agree, that things outside of the physical (or outside of the universe) are not actively available for scientific study. Similarly in biology, where the subject is capable of making choices, and able to allude study, I think that we can come to reasonable conclusions about a cause, without having the cause available.
To a large extent, I am speaking to general principles, again here, I think that it is better to work from the general, to the specific. I do think that from a naturalist standpoint, that evolution, despite the difficulties and improbabilities that are known; that must be overcome (in current theories), is pretty much the only reasonable option (some form of evolution anyway). By the way, I do think that the overall idea of evolution is unfalsifiable for these reasons.
As to not knowing anyone, or what bias's exist. If I misunderstand something or make an unwarranted assumption, I apologize, and feel free to correct me. I didn't say anything about disqualifying scientific ideas, because I disagree with them, but I do think that, it is not reasonable, to exclude something a priori, and then act like you are giving it a fair and balanced consideration.
(August 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.
So we've got you here, bemoaning a priori biases against things that have no evidence even indicating them, and which you are incapable of providing the evidence that would make insisting on naturalism actually an a priori bias, essentially making your insistence on the supernatural anyway literally the thing you're going on about...
And we've got Steve on the other side, asserting that the supernatural actively resists scientific detection, meaning that there's no possible way that science could ever countenance the supernatural to begin with, let alone be biased against it.
Which is true? Shouldn't you two be sorting that out? And moreover, what exactly do you want from us, if you can't actually bring any evidence to bear?
While I have disagreed with Steve on some things in the past, I have no problem; nor see any problem with a disagreement here, that it should be singled out like this. In this case, just from things which Steve had said before, I didn't comment to him, because I think that we are actually closer together in thinking then you are surmising. I would agree, that things outside of the physical (or outside of the universe) are not actively available for scientific study. Similarly in biology, where the subject is capable of making choices, and able to allude study, I think that we can come to reasonable conclusions about a cause, without having the cause available.
Quote:You seem to just want to disqualify scientific ideas that disagree with you out of hand as biased, without either showing how a balanced view of the situation would include the thing you're asserting is being unfairly excluded, nor showing how you know that bias even exists, given that you don't know a single fucking person you're accusing, here. It's just a silencing tactic, right now.
To a large extent, I am speaking to general principles, again here, I think that it is better to work from the general, to the specific. I do think that from a naturalist standpoint, that evolution, despite the difficulties and improbabilities that are known; that must be overcome (in current theories), is pretty much the only reasonable option (some form of evolution anyway). By the way, I do think that the overall idea of evolution is unfalsifiable for these reasons.
As to not knowing anyone, or what bias's exist. If I misunderstand something or make an unwarranted assumption, I apologize, and feel free to correct me. I didn't say anything about disqualifying scientific ideas, because I disagree with them, but I do think that, it is not reasonable, to exclude something a priori, and then act like you are giving it a fair and balanced consideration.
