Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

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.

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

I'm not sure if that's true or not. 

No I was asking a question it's in the part you clipped from that quote, so here it is again.
"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?"

I have emboldened it for you, can I expect an answer?

Belacqua  if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

For context that was your original claim, can you give an example of such evidence? 

NB Not a definition of evidence, but an example of such evidence?

[Paleophyte]

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.

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

The claim that science can't examine or detect the non-natural isn't a philosophical claim. It's a religious one that's frequently trotted out by apologists. It's baseless, relying as it does on the mistaken notion that zero isn't a number. If you have a phenomenon with zero natural explanations, then you might have something non-natural. Maybe. To date, religion has thoroughly failed to even identify what non-natural evidence might consist of, much less how anybody would ever apply it, much less anything that they'd apply it to. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to define into being some relevance for their superstitions.

As I recall you insist on Objective Evidence. I have a broader view of what may increase the credibility of a proposition.

Only with respect to your one particular religion. With respect to any other religion or system of knowledge, you demand even higher evidentiary standards than any atheist. Your epistemic bias couldn't be more obvious if you tried.

"More successful" at what, exactly?

Explanatory and predictive power. Religion has neither.

[Sheldon]

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

The claim that science can't examine or detect the non-natural isn't a philosophical claim. It's a religious one that's frequently trotted out by apologists. 

I am inclined to agree, and the only poster championing philosophy in this thread can't give a single example of what he categorises "evidence" that is beyond the remit of science or the natural realm. 

To date, religion has thoroughly failed to even identify what non-natural evidence might consist of, much less how anybody would ever apply it, much less anything that they'd apply it to. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to define into being some relevance for their superstitions.

I don't think it is an accident that religious apologetics retreat into unfalsifiable claims when subjected to critical examination. Most apologists I encounter don't seem to understand that implying your argument has veracity because it can't be falsified or an alternative explanation offered is fallacious. 

Belacqua Wrote: As I recall you insist on Objective Evidence. I have a broader view of what may increase the credibility of a proposition.

You set a lower bar for credulity than do I, as is your right, but what's odd is when you were asked for one example of evidence that is outside of the remit of science to examine or the natural realm, you didn't offer anything but a string of straw man claims I'd not made? 
Again for context this was your original assertion to another poster:

Quote:

Belacqua  if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

You surely must be able to offer one example of such evidence, so we can at least judge what it is you are decrying others for being dubious about.

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?

[Belacqua]

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? To me, it seems like 1) evidence, and 2) not scientific. But perhaps you're looking for something different. 

Earlier, I said that 

"Evidence is any observation (whether taken through scientific experiment or not), or subjective experience, or testimony, or tradition, which increases the credibility of a proposition." 

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

Here is what I wrote before:

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

I'm not sure if that's true or not. 

I wouldn't want to be in the position of begging the question: "everything that science has found is natural, therefore everything that's natural is found by science. Therefore only natural things exist." 

Here I'm pointing out that by limiting science to the study of nature, we do not prove that there is nothing outside nature. Notice that I said I'm not sure what the best conclusion is. I do not know whether there are things outside of nature. 

One of the problems is that the word "nature" is quite hard to define. It used to have a clear meaning long ago, but has drifted. Is mathematics part of nature? Is art? Are ethics? I don't know. 

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. 

Science is a process which observes strict rules. 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 (not proof). But it is not scientific, because it isn't done in a controlled test with repeatable falsifiable results. For example, the word "good," when applied to a restaurant, is not clearly defined. 

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. 

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

These are examples of unscientific evidence which may increase the credibility of propositions.

[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.

[Paleophyte]

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. 

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that we can demonstrate that they exist. Critics notwithstanding, there's precious little here that's non-natural.

"Evidence is any observation (whether taken through scientific experiment or not), or subjective experience, or testimony, or tradition, which increases the credibility of a proposition."

Do you have any evidence that there are any non-natual phenomena? Do you have any non-natural evidence for these? How does your brain, which would appear to work by entirely natural processes, perceive these non-natural events?

[Paleophyte]

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

Then you accept the existence of Brahma, Vishnu, and Kali? Pele? Itzamna and Kinich Ahau? Excellent! My work here is done.

These are examples of unscientific evidence which may increase the credibility of propositions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jumping jesus on a pogo stick. Evidence must by definition be evident. Any old thing a nut happens to say as their “personal testimony” does not and cannot qualify as evidence. The proper term for that is “shit people can say”. I could, for example, say that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east…but my saying so doesn’t raise the probability of its truth and rejecting that claim does not entail any calculation of odds.

What is word. And for what? Because the pixies stubbornly refuse to interact with the world, stymying our arational beliefs and cultural need for evidentiary approval?

[arewethereyet]

Ya'll keep asking Bel for answers. He is only going to regurgitate something he read somewhere so that he can do some name-droppping.

Bel doesn't have an original thought often, and when he does, it's presented as undeniable fact.

[Sheldon]

So far he's offered subjective opinions about what kind of films he likes, facile scenarios about why a car park might be full, and a string of straw men fallacies.

Now I'm a gambling man by nature, and so I am prepared to bet 20 pounds sterling, he can't ever offer an example of "evidence" that is outside of the remit of science, or (he missed the word or entirely the first time I asked my question) the natural realm.

"Or", he will violate the word evidence like a "drag queen at a tractor pull".

Which of course is exactly what he did.

Wet shoes is "evidence" an angel has cried on your feet etc etc etc...

Is that outside of the remit of science? Well fuck me it is, so that's the standard of "evidence" he is decrying people for not investing belief in.