Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

One can apply the term evidence to just about anything, so please clarify with at least one example of what it is you think constitutes evidence, that is beyond the remit of science to examine?

The video clips on YouTube constitute good evidence that I would not enjoy the new Superman movie very much. 

Is this the sort of thing you're asking about?

It was your claim, so you're saying that is evidence that science can't investigate, really? 

Did I say somewhere that all evidence must be within "the remit of science to examine"? 

Did I claim you had? I asked a specific question about a specific claim you made, I have asked it twice, do you need your claim and my question repeated a third time?

The testimony of others provides evidence (not proof) as to whether a university professor teaches well or badly.

Seriously I can repeat your claim and my question again if you need me to, as that is clearly not outside of the remit of science to investigate. 

My subjective experience of watching movies provides me with evidence about which new movies I will enjoy. I don't think this is scientific, yet it is evidence. 

So when you accused another poster of ignoring all evidence unless it was scientific, you meant he wouldn't accept a subjective claim from you about what type of films you enjoy, seriously? Do you also imagine the methods of science can't objectively examine which types of films you enjoy?

I'm pointing out that by limiting science to the study of nature, we do not prove that there is nothing outside nature.

Can you point to something outside of nature please, some data for science to examine? 

One of the problems is that the word "nature" is quite hard to define.

noun
1 the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

That wasn't hard at all really...

If you think that because science has only addressed natural things, that we can therefore conclude that only natural things exist, you are taking a philosophical position. It is a reasonable position held by many people. 

I would need someone to demonstrate that anything beyond the natural physical world exists or is even possible before I would believe there was anything to study, and this would be true even if science were not the most successful method we have for understanding reality, or even if it did not exist. 

Many of the observations we make in life, which provide us with evidence, are not made according to the scientific method. For example, the number of cars in the parking lot indicate to me that the restaurant is good. This is evidence 

Seriously I can repeat your claim and my question if you need me to? Not according to the scientific method does not mean it is outside of the remit of science to investigate. 


Your scenario is also facile poor reasoning, as there could be any number of other explanations. All of which the scientific method could help examine objectively. 

So far you haven't offered a single example of evidence that is beyond the remit of science to examine. I can offer you an answer if you want? 
 
I also never motioned the word proof, so please drop this straw man misnomer.

Sheldon wrote: One can apply the term evidence to just about anything

You seem to be applying it to subjective claims here, and even those are not beyond science to investigate, so I am not sure why.

Belacqua Wrote: Because when you ask for evidence, you are asking for the kind of thing that science would be able to study. And if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

Sheldon wrote: You don't offer a criteria of what you think such evidence would be, that exists entirely outside of the remit of science or the natural realm I mean. Could you give me an example, so I can understand what you mean by "evidence" in that context?

Well there it is a third time then, since you still haven't offered a single example. NB If someone is asking for evidence that a claim is true, it is unlikely to be a trivial claim like what kind of films someone likes, and of course if a claim is entirely subjective, then it is unlikely anyone would demand evidence for it, your favourite colour does not require objective evidence, as it is not objectively true that one colour is "better" than another.