Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-scientific evidence
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 1 of 98 (559546)
05-10-2010 7:33 AM


In a current thread in the Faith and Belief forum, EvC Forum: Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity , a poster claimed that the existence and properties of what he termed the supernatural could be determined without use of the scientific method. He claimed that there was what he called "non-scientific evidence" that could be used for the purpose.
I took the term "non-scientific evidence" to be some kind of evidence that is not based on observation. However, that was not explicitly stated.
I would like to offer this thread as an opportunity for anyone who wishes to show what "non-scientific evidence" might be, to offer examples, and to demonstrate how it can be shown to be reliable.
Of course, others may discuss what is presented.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2010 7:02 PM Woodsy has not replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2010 8:50 PM Woodsy has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 7 of 98 (559637)
05-10-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
05-10-2010 8:35 PM


Re: What is "scientific evidence"?
I think he's referring to Dr. Sing... check here Message 215 and up plus here Message 226.
That's right. I have seen references to ways of investigating the supernatural that do not use the scientific method a number of times. What I have not encountered is a convincing explanation of just what these methods might be. I'd rather like to know. Maybe I have missed something it would be good to know about.
A message by dwise1 expanded on my request for information quite nicely. Message 271
"Non-scientific" is a bad phraseology, imao
That's quite possible. Dr Sing stated that scientific methods could not be used, so "non-scientific" seemed to suit.
I took a look at his last 5 messages posted, or so, and he seems to be another positivist bent against religion, no offense Woodsy.
No problem!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2010 8:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2010 11:09 AM Woodsy has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 38 of 98 (559954)
05-12-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Pauline
05-11-2010 7:48 PM


3. Is there an unseen world out there? Can we know anything about it? If yes
4. How can we know anything about an unseen world?
Here is the crux of the matter, if by unseen you mean physically undetectable rather than just not accessible to human senses.
I do not see how any knowledge of anything real can be gained without reliance on observations of some kind.
There are fields of study that look as if that is possible, such as mathematics and logic, but my impression is that those boil down to something like tautologies, which is why they do not depend on observations. (Mathematicians here are welcome to correct this, or provide a better way of expressing it, if I am astray.)
By the way, the study of history is indeed empirical. Evidence can be collected by observation as well as by experimentation.
(Please excuse my sparse posting at present. I am preoccupied with an equipment failure at work just now. Thanks to all for carrying on so well.)
Edited by Woodsy, : excuses added

The metaphysicist has no laboratory. Robert Wood

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Pauline, posted 05-11-2010 7:48 PM Pauline has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 52 of 98 (560095)
05-13-2010 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 12:19 AM


Re: The Judgment Of Paris
The very fact that you give this as an example shows that you know that there are other data for the existence of Paris; and this is in fact how you know that Paris is a real place and Mordor is not.
This brings up a very important notion: consilience. The more an observation or idea fits with what we know of how things are, the more we can expect that it is correct. For example,if we are told that a bird flies beak-first, we are more justified in accepting the statement than we are if told it flies backwards. RAZD has given us superb examples in his threads on correlations among dating methods.
Notions of the supernatural have problems in this respect.
Edited by Woodsy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 64 of 98 (560340)
05-14-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pauline
05-13-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Stage 2
Dr Sing, is this the best you can do? Tired old arguments that were discarded by thinking people ages ago?
I suggest you read other things than inbred theology. It might help relieve the damage that religion does to the intellect.
Still no beef!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pauline, posted 05-13-2010 11:18 PM Pauline has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024