Oh no not another free will thread.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your second level is nonsense.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with pondering things.  But it carries 0 weight.  So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

Is it that you just don’t understand him?  Science is the most accurate tool that we presently have to build working models of the physical world as we experience it, but science is still contingent upon human experience.  There may be aspects of reality that we, as temporal and experiential beings, simply can never have access to.  

Example: It may be a fact that there is a difference between a rock, and the human experience of a rock.  But if there is, we have no way of knowing.  We can’t leave our subjective experience.

Hammy’s position (and mine) is simply the philosophical acknowledgement that science is objective within the frame work of subjective experience, and therefore we are limited in what we can know.  There is nothing supernatural or fantastical about that.  It’s actually the most intellectually honest position to take regarding epistemology, IMO.  And, it in no way undermines the value science. There are no mutually exclusive ideas here.  Science and philosophy can cooperate with one another.

I love your post so much I'm gonna put it in the hall of wit and epicness for expressing my views only much concisely and less rambley than I do.

---

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

That which is actually testable, empirical and able to be experienced on some level.

---

And if my evidence amounted to little or nothing  (at least in you opinion) , what would you then do ?

That's it, though, isn't it?

They have no qualms dismissing other claims based on no evidence, but their claims are fine with no evidence.

Whose?