• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Science Can't Answer it...

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I am saying I have interests and learn from things science cannot address at this time.
Or in other words "I imagine stuff".

Now we are into disagreement. I am convinced there is real information about reality that can be grasped with psychic senses
When you say "psychic senses", do you men "my imagination ?

that are beyond the range of our physical senses and instruments.
If they cannot be objectively and repeatedly detected and tested, how do you know they exist at all outside of your imagination

I consider the teachings and insights of those I judge worthy of my respect.
Whuh? So your approved sources of objective, rational info is based on confirmation bias?
Why am i not surprised?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I am using the word 'Evidence' per the first definition in the dictionary:

ev·i·dence
[ˈevədəns]
NOUN

  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
    "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

So, for example, if two people claim to have seen the same ghost then that is 'evidence' (not proof) for the ghost.

Perhaps science cannot do much with that anecdotal evidence. But by having interest in more than science, I consider all evidence in forming my 'all things considered' position.

This is called normal human reasoning skills.
So if me and my mate do some acid and we both see the carpet turn to water - that is "evidence " that the carpet actually did turn to water?
:tearsofjoy:
**mod edit**
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
When you say "overwhelming", do you just mean "I find convincing"?
It means I find it overwhelmingly convincing.
BTW, "Anecdote" is note "evidence" - otherwise my anecdote of seeing with your mother means it happened.
Whatever words you want to use I consider everything in my 'all things considered' position. And that would include my judgment of the quality of your anecdote regarding my mother.
What do you mean by "epistemological"?
It's Wikipedia and not me. But for our general edification the dictionary definition is:

e·pis·te·mo·log·i·cal
[iˌpistəməˈläjəkəl]
ADJECTIVE
philosophy

  1. relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion:
    "what epistemological foundation is there for such an artificial discrimination?"
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Here you are just hair-splitting about words like 'evidence' versus 'testimony'
Oh, hilaious!
Here you are just hair-splitting about words like "reality' and 'imagination".

In forming an 'all things considered' position I consider all of the above. I consider all 'testimony' and non-perceptual information if that's what you prefer to call it. In reasoning we form judgments on the quality, quantity and consistency of testimony/evidence and consider that in our overall evaluation.
So you therefore equally consider all the testimony of people who have never seen ghosts, don't believe in ghosts, have tried to contact ghosts and failed, and who have conducted experiments that have failed to show any sign of ghosts?
Whats that?
You reject all that because they are close-minded and not open to accepting the reality of ghosts?
Quelle surprise!
:tearsofjoy:
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Or in other words "I imagine stuff".

When you say "psychic senses", do you men "my imagination ?
Neither, but rather extrasensory perception.
If they cannot be objectively and repeatedly detected and tested, how do you know they exist at all outside of your imagination
By thorough consideration of all the relevant information.
Whuh? So your approved sources of objective, rational info is based on confirmation bias?
Why am i not surprised?
I call it best reasoning, all things considered.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So if me and my mate do some acid and we both see the carpet turn to water - that is "evidence " that the carpet actually did turn to water?
:tearsofjoy:
No. One considers the quality of the claim too all things considered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So you therefore equally consider all the testimony of people who have never seen ghosts, don't believe in ghosts, have tried to contact ghosts and failed, and who have conducted experiments that have failed to show any sign of ghosts?
Whats that?
You reject all that because they are close-minded and not open to accepting the reality of ghosts?
Quelle surprise!
:tearsofjoy:
Sorry to disturb your point, but I consider all the above in my 'all things considered' evaluation.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
That might be the position of Scientism perhaps.

As for me, not being a follower of Scientism, I feel quite a bit is explained in Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric wisdom traditions about non-material domains. The information presented is purported to be the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses. It is presented for our consideration.
The word scientism has degenerated to a mere epithet. Simple name calling. You are trying to deride me for being skeptical of people who merely insist that I accept them on their word with a category that is demonstrably rife with egos, fraud and predatory practices. You are propping your claims on negging me.

Try dealing with my actual words rather than facile demogoguery.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The word scientism has degenerated to a mere epithet. Simple name calling. You are trying to deride me for being skeptical of people who merely insist that I accept them on their word with a category that is demonstrably rife with egos, fraud and predatory practices. You are propping your claims on negging me.

Try dealing with my actual words rather than facile demogoguery.
The word 'Scientism' should not be looked at as necessarily good or bad. One can be proud of following Scientism. It is just a philosophy I do not personally follow and argue against.

If you follow it, defend it!
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
The word 'Scientism' should not be looked at as necessarily good or bad. One can be proud of following Scientism. It is just a philosophy I do not personally follow and argue against.

If you follow it, defend it!
Again you address an epithet (good or ill) and not what was said.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
Here you are just hair-splitting about words like 'evidence' versus 'testimony' but the word you want to use is totally unimportant to my point.

In forming an 'all things considered' position I consider all of the above. I consider all 'testimony' and non-perceptual information if that's what you prefer to call it. In reasoning we form judgments on the quality, quantity and consistency of testimony/evidence and consider that in our overall evaluation.

Words have meanings.
I appreciate the fact that you include a definition to clarify your meaning.

However, I was pointing out the discrepancy between the definition you provided and the example you gave.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
These other areas are subjective but I don’t agree that they are entirely emotional. You are trying to suggest that because the domain of science may overlap these domains that equates to their being subject to science. That is incorrect.
Depends.

An awful lot of supernatural claims
intrude into what science can investigate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

Audie

Veteran Member
I am using the word 'Evidence' per the first definition in the dictionary:

ev·i·dence
[ˈevədəns]
NOUN

  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
    "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

So, for example, if two people claim to have seen the same ghost then that is 'evidence' (not proof) for the ghost.

Perhaps science cannot do much with that anecdotal evidence. But by having interest in more than science, I consider all evidence in forming my 'all things considered' position.

This is called normal human reasoning skills.
The only "fact" there that two people said something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
But you are assuming that life necessarily does have meaning and purpose.
However, there is no evidence or rational argument that it does.
If the current explanations for the universe, life, etc are correct, then life doesn't have any inherent purpose or meaning other than the drive to reproduce, and whatever subjective meaning we give it through our ability to think abstract thoughts.

I did not claim that there's a rational argument. Rational arguments are in the realm of the material, including science.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Science is limited. It has a domain but is not omnipotent. There are other domains in which science is tangential or not relevant. Nor are these other domains necessarily religious. Consider the domains of poetry, art or emotions. These spheres are not constrained by science.
Stop the presses. We happen to agree on this point.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Depends.

An awful lot of supernatural claims
intrude into what science can investigate.

That's true. Too many supernatural claims are just superstition. But there are things science can't examine because science is limited.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
That might be the position of Scientism perhaps.

As for me, not being a follower of Scientism, I feel quite a bit is explained in Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric wisdom traditions about non-material domains. The information presented is purported to be the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses. It is presented for our consideration.

As you correctly point out;
The information is “purported to be” (i.e. alleged: asserted; doubtful; suspect; supposed) the direct experiences of those with psychic/clairvoyant senses.

Of course there is ‘testimony’ of psychic/clairvoyant senses, but no clear ‘evidence’ of such.
Again, words have meanings.

In forming an 'all things considered' position I consider all of the above. I consider all 'testimony' and non-perceptual information if that's what you prefer to call it. In reasoning we form judgments on the quality, quantity and consistency of testimony/evidence and consider that in our overall evaluation.

While you are forming judgments of quality (how is this determined?) and consistency of this data,
do you consider ‘testimony’ to be of equal value as actual clear ‘evidence’ ( correctly using your previous definition; i.e. “the available body of ‘facts’ and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.)?
 
Top