RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 28, 2020 at 8:48 pm
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2020 at 8:49 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(May 28, 2020 at 8:41 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 28, 2020 at 8:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Give a counter example, and how it can potentially be demonstrated.
I just got through saying that I changed my mind. It can't be demonstrated. Because True Believers can always find a way.
Science can't explain some things. You assume that all those things can be explained by science. I am not sure of that. That is all.
It's like the Loch Ness monster example. The existence of the monster cannot be falsified. However, an abundance of evidence makes it reasonable for us to assume that there is no monster.
Likewise, the statement "science can explain everything" can't be falsified. A preponderance of evidence may make it reasonable to assume that everything can be explained by science, but no certainty is possible.
Since the statement in question is not a scientific one, it clearly isn’t falsifiable (glad to see you changed your mind on that), nor should it be. It is essentially on a par with the statement ‘only scientific statements have value’, which is scientism, not science.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
