One simple question

[tavarish]

Oh, I would prefer that 100% if it was feasible, because the difference between 99,99% and 100% might hold important clues and even might change all foregoing conclusions. But as I stated before, the 100% option is not possible. Indeed I agree that given the fact that we have no free access to 100% abolute truth a comparison of alternative methods should include intrinsic consistency.

Agreed.

Some religious deal in absolutes for sure. And be assured that I am not demanding absoluteness of you. But given the fact that you and I cannot deal in absolutes we should be aware that our position on truth is relative and that in that sense we can claim no guarantee from our preferred method (science) itself.

If some religious individuals deal in absolutes, they still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate what this information is, how it is an absolute truth, and why it is at all relevant to subjective perceptions within reality. Assertions aren't demonstrations.

However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Testing your hypothesis is definitely part of the scientific method, including any null or alternative hypotheses you may have. This, in essence, is self-examination and demands that you review your own methodology in such a way that it is consistently demonstrable and relatively free of bias. In order to preserve the accuracy of the method, you must examine and assess the way in which you use it.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

I don't quite understand that at all. The magic of science is that is a method of discovery and explanation above all else. Our limited scope is expanding daily, and the only thing guiding this is doubt and a need for observable, testable examples of the world around us. I wouldn't say the mind in a jar isabsolutely false and will always be false, but I will say that I haven't been shown any evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a mind in the jar. This lack of evidence leads me to say that in practice, I can regard the jar as being devoid of a disembodied mind within my understanding of reality, as it has zero impact or relevance of my understanding of the entity in question. For all intents and purposes, there is no demonstrable mind in the jar.

When I said "render empirical observations meaningless", I was replying to the illusion you cited. if this is all an illusion, nothing we can ever discover will ever be relevant to anything of merit, as it is deceptive by nature.

To what purpose? To find that they have some other "method" (e.g. divinely installed knowledge) does not mean that you can compare succes rates of methods in terms of truth.

You can definitely compare which methods are more readily demonstrable, and which ones comport with an objective reality, rather than something that is based wholly on subjective interpretation. The purpose was to determine if their method of determining what is real is consistent with other claims and aspects of their life. This is evaluating their methodology using their own standard, not necessarily mine.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

Yes, but a claim is not a demonstration. Saying something is absolutely true is meaningless because it holds no merit without credible evidence, at least not if you want to persuade someone with such an argument.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?

You did ask to draw a line between true and false didn't you?

I asked for the method of determining whether something is real or not, which is based on subjective perception. No ultimate anything here.