Evidence...

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't. It helps with this and the limit of objective observation:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Again, you were the one that brought up the personal habits of axioms. I even quoted you when you asked. Now you appear to have changed the topic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, you were the one that brought up the personal habits of axioms. I even quoted you when you asked. Now you appear to have changed the topic.

Sorry. I lost track. So you win by default.
Now I will concentrate on objective evidence and its limits

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I see that 2+2=11 is correct by certain sex of axioms."

I am quoting my quote of you talking about the private activities of axioms. Frankly it sounds a bit kinky to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am quoting my quote of you talking about the private activities of axioms. Frankly it sounds a bit kinky to me.

Funny. I like you. Yeah, sure sex and not set.

 

[Sheldon]

What objective reality is in itself.

I'm not sure there is any such thing as objective reality, only reality, and the best we can do is use the best method we have to understand it objectively, and that is demonstrably the scientific method...so far anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure there is any such thing as objective reality, only reality, and the best we can do is use the best method we have to understand it objectively, and that is demonstrably the scientific method...so far anyway.

Please objective evidence for the fact that it is the best method we have. Not you saying or writing it. You giving a link to a scientific site or book.

You as you can say something, and so I can. So please provide another source than you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please objective evidence for the fact that it is the best method we have. Not you saying or writing it. You giving a link to a scientific site or book.

You as you can say something, and so I can. So please provide another source than you.

We are communicating right now.(Mic drop)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are communicating right now.(Mic drop)

Yeah, but that amounts to this:
P1 as a fact: We are communicating right now.
C: Therefore it is objectively good.
That is not valid. You have to provide at least one more premise that then show that is sound and not just valid.

 

[Sheldon]

Please objective evidence for the fact that it is the best method we have. Not you saying or writing it. You giving a link to a scientific site or book.

You as you can say something, and so I can. So please provide another source than you.

Well obviously you're talking about a vast body of work, when we talk about the successes of science, and that fact is of course evidence in itself one would have thought.

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

Pew research centre

1. Genome editing. ...
2. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) ...
3. RNA-sequencing. ...
4. Penicillin. ...
5. The molecular structure of DNA. ...
6. Electricity. ...
7. Levodopa. ...
8. Painkillers and anaesthetic.

Astronomy: Big Bang Theory. Biology: Cell Theory; Theory of Evolution; Germ Theory of Disease. Chemistry: Atomic Theory; Kinetic Theory of Gases. Physics: General Relativity; Special Relativity; Theory of Relativity; Quantum Field Theory.

• Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
• Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
• Universal Law of Gravitation.
• Newton's Laws of Motion.
• Laws of Thermodynamics.
• Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.

Obviously this is a tiny fraction of what science has achieved, but do please cite a method, supported by objective evidence of course, that is more successful?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, you have that wrong and have demonstrated that you are not being rational.

I am sure that if a Muslim or Hindu told you that you were wrong because their God talked to them you would dismiss their claims and believe that God had not contacted them. If they continued to insist and you told them to "prove it" would you accept their insistence that God talked to them?

I would not assume they hadn't heard anything. That's the difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would not assume they hadn't heard anything. That's the difference.

Then others should assume the same about you.

The sort of message from God that you had is testable. If you refuse to do it we can test large groups of people and show that the vast majority have to be wrong. Do you understand this? And you really should consider testing your message. The human brain is rather fragile at times and can easily be fooled. Without proper testing you have no way of knowing if you had a message from God or not. The odds are that you just have a false belief.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then others should assume the same about you.

The sort of message from God that you had is testable. If you refuse to do it we can test large groups of people and show that the vast majority have to be wrong. Do you understand this? And you really should consider testing your message. The human brain is rather fragile at times and can easily be fooled. Without proper testing you have no way of knowing if you had a message from God or not. The odds are that you just have a false belief.

Lol, you don't understand at all.
It's not just a single message. It's a lifetime of confirmation that God is real and speaking.
" Proper testin" You think one can scientifically test the infinite? Funny stuff!

 

[DNB]

Oh no! Please, please give me the ratings!!!! It is what I live for!! Arghulagulgagulahhhhh! *dies from lack of ratings*

I did not imply that you desire ratings, ...but, perhaps we can make an inference as to what the catalyst was behind my motive for bringing this up...?

You're absolutely right. I didn't have to. Perhaps we can make some inference there as to my motives or impetus, eh?

As what, sarcasm and bombast as a form of pedagogy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, you don't understand at all.
It's not just a single message. It's a lifetime of confirmation that God is real and speaking.
" Proper testin" You think one can scientifically test the infinite? Funny stuff!

You have it so wrong. You would not be "testing God". What makes you think that? The test would be to see if your experience was legitimate or not. If your God was real he should have told you that.

Testing a person's claimed experience is not testing God. You made the error of assuming that your experience was real without verifying it.`

By the way, what you unfortunately described was not testing it was bias confirmation. If your beliefs are true you should not be afraid to test them. Fear indicates uncertainty. There is only one way to get rid of uncertainty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well obviously you're talking about a vast body of work, when we talk about the successes of science, and that fact is of course evidence in itself one would have thought.

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

Pew research centre

1. Genome editing. ...
2. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) ...
3. RNA-sequencing. ...
4. Penicillin. ...
5. The molecular structure of DNA. ...
6. Electricity. ...
7. Levodopa. ...
8. Painkillers and anaesthetic.

Astronomy: Big Bang Theory. Biology: Cell Theory; Theory of Evolution; Germ Theory of Disease. Chemistry: Atomic Theory; Kinetic Theory of Gases. Physics: General Relativity; Special Relativity; Theory of Relativity; Quantum Field Theory.

• Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
• Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
• Universal Law of Gravitation.
• Newton's Laws of Motion.
• Laws of Thermodynamics.
• Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.

Obviously this is a tiny fraction of what science has achieved, but do please cite a method, supported by objective evidence of course, that is more successful?

I think it says more about you, that you keep falsely assuming I don't know something, without asking me.

Care to show a post where I have made a claim remotely contrary to anything in that link?

1. Science has limits
2. Science doesn't make moral judgments
   
3. Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
   
4. Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
   
5. Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Not only have I not contradicted any of those claims, i have made some of them myself, so your straw man accusations are staring to looking a little dishonest to me, care to explain?

Now thank for taking you time and make and effort. I got what I was looking for:
"“I think it is the versatility of CRISPR that makes it the greatest discovery of all time, CRISPR can be used to edit, knock-out, inhibit and activate genes. I am very excited to be starting a new project in the new year involving CRISPR and I can’t wait to see what we will learn using this technique”.

So can you explain the problem with that quote in regards to objective evidence and how it connects to at least personal useful and sort of moral judgments?
Look at what type of person is use grammatical, then look at how that connects to some of the verbs and so on.
In other words what kind of observation and measurements is used in this quote to backup the main claim.

So here is a clue.
I think that you are a useless human and you have no worth at all. Does that meet that the standard of objective evidence?
So here is your claim: I think and so do some other humans that science is the best method we humans have.
Now compare that with this: I think and so do some other humans that Christianity is the best method we have have.

Here is how I understand it. It appears that you in effect conflate your subjective value evaluation with objective evidence.
So here it is for 3 kinds of experience:

1. I see a dog and I can describe the dog.
2. I understand cognitively how 2+2=11 works for a given set of mathematical axioms.
3. I think as a personal value evolution that critical thinking is the most important method to me, that I have ever learned.

Is the 3rd one science? Is it science if some other people think like me? Does it meet the standard for objective evidence? Or is it a first person subjective value evaluation connected to morality and useful as per good?

Looking forward to understand how you think and if I have missed something.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a lifetime of confirmation that God is real and speaking.

For you, but when you assert this publicly it is not objective evidence, but a bare subjective claim. What's more, other theists make the same claim, for different deities. Now of course when this fact is presented as a flaw in the claim they all make the identical rationalisation, my deity is real, theirs isn't, they're somehow misinterpreting it. Again the irony seems lost on theists when they make this bare claim.

" Proper testin" You think one can scientifically test the infinite? Funny stuff!

No, it's your belief and you have asserted it publicly, it is for you to find a way to evidence and test it, otherwise as i say what you're presenting is a bare claim. Incidentally your claim also seems unfalsifiable to me, and I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, as they are meaningless because we can know nothing about them. Though I would also remain agnostic about such claims, as I cannot be otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For you, but when you assert this publicly it is not objective evidence, but a bare subjective claim. What's more, other theists make the same claim, for different deities. Now of course when this fact is presented as a flaw in the claim they all make the identical rationalisation, my deity is real, theirs isn't, they're somehow misinterpreting it. Again the irony seems lost on theists when they make this bare claim.



No, it's your belief and you have asserted it publicly, it is for you to find a way to evidence and test it, otherwise as i say what you're presenting is a bare claim. Incidentally your claim also seems unfalsifiable to me, and I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, as they are meaningless because we can know nothing about them. Though I would also remain agnostic about such claims, as I cannot be otherwise.

Now properly test your thinking and present objective evidence and not what you think in regards to science being the best method we have.
Explain how to make your claim falsifiable using observation.

 

[Sheldon]

Now properly test your thinking and present objective evidence and not what you think in regards to science being the best method we have.

I've done this for you in several posts now, by all means address that evidence, and I will consider your response.

Explain how to make your claim falsifiable using observation.

Easy, demonstrating evidence for one or more methods that are demonstrably more successful would axiomatically falsify that idea.

NB I am not claiming that science is the most successful method at understanding reality based solely on my own personal experience, see the difference? That's what I meant when I said it was "DEMSONTRABLY the best method, because it's successes are QUANTIFIABLE."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've done this for you in several posts now, by all means address that evidence, and I will consider your response.



Easy, demonstrating evidence for one or more methods that are demonstrably more successful would axiomatically falsify that idea.

NB I am not claiming that science is the most successful method at understanding reality based solely on my own personal experience, see the difference? That's what I meant when I said it was "DEMSONTRABLY the best method, because it's successes are QUANTIFIABLE."

You haven't shown the objective measurement standard for success. As far as it stands, your measurement standard for success is subjective.
You do the following:
P1 as an objective description of science: Science is a human methodology for understand some aspects of the world.
P2: The methodology works.
C: Therefore it is a success an better than other methodologies and the best methodology we have.

That is what you have done. You don't understand that your standard for success is subjective and that your comparison with other methodologies is subjective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that you are a useless human and you have no worth at all.

All humans are useless in real sense, even the whole humanity. Sheldon, you and me. Evolution has just one use for them. They are like like bubbles in water. Are born and die. No different from mosquitoes. And a time may come when human existence comes to an end. No Hominoid specie has survived for more than a few million years. Modern Humans are becoming even far removed from nature, and consequently more susceptible to extinction not withstanding their progress in science.