Do science and religion have rights to some "explanatory space"?

hey ericp, a simple test for your logic There is one thing missing in this evaluation. That is that as they cannot both be true, one contradicting the other, one of your premises must be false. This is a standard test of logic. This is your false premise: if you can make no observations you cannot conclude whether they would concur or invalidate the theory.You have assumed that they "necessarily concur with it" rather than show how this must be the case. Observations could invalidate the theory just as easily as concur with it.The proper conclusion then is that you do not know. There is a lot we don't know.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi, Erik. This is the logic equivalent of "innocent until proven guily," I suppose?From a practical point of view, what use is this definition? You are aware that "explanatory space" refers to practicality, right?Can your method be used to answer questions about reality?If not, then I submit that your opinion has neither any rights to any explanatory space, nor any rights to space on this thread.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

That definition of "true" is in fact the definition of "unfalsifiable".

---

A fact by itself is also true, since the observation obviously cannot contradict itself. Therefore, my hypothesis is indeed that only facts and unfalsifiable theories can be true.

quote:

---

the definition is obviously faulty

---

This the standard definition in science for truth/untruth. The benchmark for truth/untruth is necessarily: reality, that is, facts. But then again, according to the same definition, unfalsifiable theories are simply true.

Given the stated definitions of "true" and "false", the remainder simply follows. The proper way to discard the remainder, consists in rejecting the stated definitions. On what grounds can you reject these definitions?

quote:

---

A fact by itself is also true, since the observation obviously cannot contradict itself.

---

But since observing the contrary is also a "possible observation", it fails to fit your definition of "true".A definition of "true" which includes falsehoods while excluding true statements is no good at all.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

oh ericp, this will not do. Because I am not dealing with the definitions, but your premise: This statement is false. We have a theory: "all invisible unicorns are pink" and according to your argument this theory is true.We have another theory: "all invisible unicorns are blue" and according to your argument this theory is true.Because both of these arguments are contradictory, one of the premises must be false. It could be the premise\theory that "all invisible unicorns are pink" - in which case your premise quoted above is false, or it could be the premise\theory that "all invisible unicorns are blue" - in which case your premise quoted above is false, or it could be that your premise itself is false.Either way you end up with the premise quoted above being false.So you see, it has nothing to do with the definitions. It has to do with the "all A is B" logical fallacy as I pointed out earlier:Just because all true statements cannot be falsified does not mean that all statements that cannot be falsified are true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •