RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
August 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2013 at 5:53 pm by Chas.)
(August 9, 2013 at 5:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)Chas Wrote: Not empirical evidence, objective evidence.
Please explain the difference for us
(August 9, 2013 at 5:21 pm)Chas Wrote: All the other putative paths have never produced any knowledge; ideas, yes - knowledge, no.
Really?
Microwave? Radio wave? Dawkins stayed that both posed their existence to theoretical science. How about black holes, higgs boson. Where will string theory lead? How about dimension theory? I'm no scientist. I just find the stuff to be genius. Why dismiss a whole genre of thought? Why not be in impartial rather than what seems to be of hand dismissive? You can't even answer the question. Instead you're straight into denial. Not impressed.
Empirical evidence suggests (or assumes) empiricism as a philosophical stance. The idea that knowledge only comes from experience.
But empiricism is not true, or at least not true enough. Knowledge comes from creativity supported by evidence. We create knowledge, it is not there for the taking.
Objective evidence is evidence that can be independently understood by others, it is not internal.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
