RE: Philosophical problems with science.
December 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2013 at 12:40 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 12, 2013 at 8:00 am)I and I Wrote: What "reality" is is different depending on ones environment they grow up in, and what reality is is a philosophical question not a scientific one.
Reality is not different depending on environment. Ones perception or explanation of reality may be different, but not reality itself.
If you want to test if reality is environmentally determined, ask a bunch of Yogis in India that claim they can levitate, if they will jump off of a 500 foot cliff.
Quote:"The margin of error grows less". How would one know that this is the case?
Because it is testable.
Example:
If a medical scientist claims that their more advanced procedure for treating a disease is more effective than the previously used procedure, their claim can be tested.
If it does indeed work better, the margin of error has just been demonstrated to be less.
Quote:Assimilating facts to support a position is hardly a way to a "truth", what facts are chosen or left out is based on human bias.
Which is why science is subject to: peer review, falsifiability, repeated testing, etc.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
