Non-scientific evidence

When you use the term "reliable" what do you mean?Do you mean something that is more likely to be correct than incorrect? Something that has a greater liklehood of being correct than that achieved by random chance?Is that what we mean by "reliable"? Or are you meaning something else?

Unless we know what you mean by "reliable" I don't see how anyone can meaningfully converse with you in a topic related to demonstrating reliability. Well when I hear the term "reliable" I find it impossible not to consider there to be some relation to likelihood. Yet I know (from many many previous discussions) that you have an issue with the idea of likelihood in this sort of context. That is why I asked you what you meant. When you say that your car is "reliable" I don't see how that means anything other than that it is more likely to function in the way predicted/expected (e.g. start) than not. You mean you predict it will happen that way and you consider it likely (indeed exceptionally likely to the point of near certainty in this particular case) that your conclusion will be correct. No? If you make predictions and that is the measure of reliability how can you not consider being correct the determining factor in demonstrating that reliability?How can you separate a reliable conclusion from one that is likely to be correct? That is what I don't get.

When we make predictions are you saying that we cannot determine whether or not those predictions have been verified as correct or not? You seem to be saying that all possible causes of gravity are equal. That space-time curvature can be considered as no more likely to be the cause than can invisible gnomes. Is that what you are saying? I have never said that it will have I?I have simply requested that the basis of a conclusion (e.g. that gnomes are responsible for gravity) be able to demonstrate itself as being superior to blind chance. Randomly plucking possible conceptual causes out of the air. Guessing. Call it what you will.That is what I think the OP means when it asks for demonstrations of the reliability of of non-scientific evidence. Why should we think that your gnomes are any more likely to be the cause of gravity than any of the other conceivable causes? Are we justified in saying that space-time curvature is a more likely cause on the basis of it's ability to make correct predictions?What do we mean when we say one theory is more reliable than another and how do we demonstrate that?

Let's be absolutely clear here - Do you really consider curved spacetime as no more likely to be the underlying cause of gravity than magic gnomes? Really? Is curved space-time a superior explanation of gravity than magic gnomes or not? And if it is how can it not be considered superior in terms of accurately reflecting reality (i.e. being relatively likely to be correct)? Science is not just a predictive methodology. Scientific theories are also explanatory frameworks. The predictive ability of an explanatory framework is an indicator of how accurately that explanation reflects reality (as well as being a useful tool in itself).Curved space-time is the evidenced explanation for gravity and it has been verified as being an accurate model of reality by it's ability to make accurate predictions. To my knowledge the gravitational gnome theory remains both unevidenced and unable to make any verifiable predictions.Thus space-time curvature can be considered as relatively likely to be correct in terms of reflecting and modelling reality as compared to the competing notion that gnomes are responsible for gravity. How can you not factor in whether or not an explanation accurately reflects reality when considering competing theories? Is the theory of evolution correct in the sense of evolution having actually occurred? Or is it just a model that you cannot say is any more or less correct than any other model (e.g. the biblical creationist model)? Is the theory of evolution just a reliable predictor of results or is it an accurate description of reality?Is the theory of evolution more likely to be correct than the biblical creationist alternative? Why?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you really consider curved spacetime as no more likely to be the underlying cause of gravity than magic gnomes? Really?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Until there is a concept to even consider the only rational conclusion is Ignosticism.ignostic (plural ignostics)1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.So until you tell us what a "gisrugnienfilaubflvfaaziafcn" is I am afraid that I can only conclude that you are talking gibberish.

So we all agree that curved space-time is more likely than magic gnomes to be the underlying cause of gravity but this is not a scientific conclusion. That is your position? Yes based on it's predictive power curved space-time is considered a reliable model of reality. More reliable and thus more likely to be correct (in terms of approximating reality) than your gnomes causing gravitational effects. So what?We have scientifically established that curved space-time is far more likely to be the underlying cause of gravity than magic gnomes. No?

So what does the predictive power of a theory tell us about it's superior ability to reflect reality? Nothing? Why do we need to show that every single conceivable possible cause of gravity (a near infinite array of concepts limited only by our imagination - gnomes are the tip of the iceberg) are NOT the cause?We have an evidenced predictively verified explanation. Why is that not the one we would consider most likely to accurately reflect reality?

Does science help us understand and explain nature or is it just a predictive tool? I am hardly alone in that am I? Is evolutionary theory more likely to be correct than biblical literalism? Is curved space-time more likely to be the underlying cause of gravitational effects than magic gnomes? Where are you actually disagreeing with me on this? It does follow from the results of the scientific method. A demonstrable ability to make verifiable predictions is what leads us to consider one explanation as more likely to accurately reflect reality than another.All I have ever said to you (in how many threads now?) is that the rational conclusion is to consider the best evidenced explanation as the one most likely to be correct (i.e. to best reflect reality).I don't understand how you can disagree with that yet you seem intent on doing so. Why?

So let me get this straight. We both agree (along with pretty much everyone else) that the scientific conclusion is more likely to be correct than any of the the unevidenced possibilities. We all agree for example that the underlying cause of gravity is more likley to be space-time curvature than magical gravity gnomes.BUT you think that this belief that space-time curvature is more likely to be the undelying cause of gravity than gravity gnomes is irrational, unscientific and evidentially unjustifiable. That is your position. So according to science all possible explanations are equally likley to be correct. CS that is just absolute bollocks. I can see why you have to cling onto that to justify your world view that the unevidenced things you do believe in are not contradicted by evidence in any sense.But the fact is that the subjective experiences and forms of non-scientific "evidence" in which you place so much faith are much much better explained by phenomenon that have nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural. Deal with it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You seem to be disputing that science tells us that some explanations are more likely to be correct than others. Is that your position? No. If we rely on what is subjectively considered ridiculous we get nowhere. What if space-time curvature is subjectively deemed ridiculous by some? What if competing explanations are both deemed sensible (e.g. the Big Bang Vs the Steady State universe for example)? How do we decide which explanation is more likely to be correct and which is not? I'll tell you - We use the scientific method. What other option is there?We both agree that certainty is rationally unjustifiable. So if we also eliminate likelihood that means we can can never consider any one explanation as more correct than any other on the basis of scientific investigation. But the whole point of science is to weed out wrong explanations and promote explanations that can rationally be considered correct. No? Why are gnomes a "ridiculous" explanation for gravity but gods not a "ridiculous" explanation for the cause of subjective human experiences? What is the evidential difference between the two explanations besides conviction?

Then don't. Simply ask yourself why it is that we can justifiably consider evolution to be more likely to be correct than biblical literalism as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Or why space-time curvature can be considered a correct explanation for gravitational effects as compared to undetectable gravity gnomes. Or why the Big Bang became accepted as the best (i.e. correct) explanation for the evolution of the universe as opposed to the other proposed alternatives put forwards (e.g. Hoyles steady state model). Ask yourself how it is that we are ever able to compare competing explanations.Then ask yourself why god as an explanation for human subjective experiences is anything other than "unlikely" when compared to the empirically evidenced alternatives. So what? This is simply the last gasp trick in the theistic playbook. "You cannot prove X does not exist so you can say nothing about X". Yet we all agree that gravity gnomes, whilst possible, are almost certainly not the cause of gravitational effects. Yet according to your thinking this conclusion is irrational and unscientific. Why do you insist that this is the case? Because if gravity gnomes can be justifiably said to be unlikely as an explanation for gravity on the basis of the scientific method then you are also forced to confront the fact that God probably isn't the cause of your much vaunted subjective experiences. Wrong. You are denying the explanatory role of science. Why do some explanations result in an ability to draw reliable conclusions and others not?To simply assert that science is a tool for making predictions without explaining or allowing us to understand the underlying causes of natural phenomenon is just an attempt to limit science in such a way as to be compatible with your belief in the un-evidenced supernatural as a valid explanation for certain phenomenon in which you are personally invested.But the bottom line is that citing god as the cause of your subjective experiences is in no way different to citing those pesky gravity gnomes as the underlying cause of gravitational effects.Both are possible explanations. But neither is likely to be correct.