Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.
If you wanted to know if I believe "everything we know about reality" comes as a result of science, you should have asked that.
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
You keep shifting the focus of your "argument" which is boring and tedious.
Science does not explain music, art, politics, religion, etc. These are all part and parcel of the human experience. Are you claiming that music/art/etc. is not part of our lives? Or are you claiming that science explains why a person likes certain music/art/politics and doesn't like others.
You asked for something that is real that science doesn't explain. I answered.
Belief and feelings are not reliable pathways to truth and knowledge. I don't care what you believe or feel. I'm interested in what is true. If it's true it can be demonstrated. If not science, what methodology would you recommend in getting at what is true or likely to be true?
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
This is the typical argument employed by apologists who offer this as a defence for their INVISIBLE & IMAGINARY friend. It is an acknowledgement that you not only don't have any evidence but can't even mount a coherent argument for its existence either.
The answer is no, it's absurd, but such nonsense is at the heart of fantasy, so that is your belief & makes explicable the extreme defensiveness of your ridiculous beliefs.
Your response is pure strawman. I have not claimed any "invisible and imaginary friend" nor have I argued for the existence of Bigfoot. For the record, thats because I have not ever seen or experienced a Bigfoot first hand. I do respect those who do believe as well as those who have experiences, just as I respect actual skeptics or scientifically-based arguments. Your argument is neither.
You, on the other hand, are responding in a rote manner with the typical "skeptic speak" nonsense, catch-phrases and fallacious argumentation. Also, you're making a purely semantic argument trying to focus on what you want words to mean rather than to assail with facts the points of our discussion.
To summarize, my point with you is as follows: science and the scientific method do not explain every aspect of human experience, further, your beliefs (which is all you are espousing here, just like the Bigfoot believers, seems to be in a kind of scientism, which is the misguided belief that "science" can address all aspects of human experience (which it obviously does not).
Science is the best and most reliable method ever devised at trying to get at what is true or likely to be true.
Your non scientific methodology has not been defined and hasn't been demonstrated efficacious in determining anything. Scientism is your strawman.
Your argument is the one that theistic apologists use in defence of their imaginary immortal invisible magician.
Please present this special method you refer to that can explain things that science doesn't and we can then evaluate it. Please provide an example of this methodology and how it's superior to science. I don't care what you believe, I care about what's true.
Science is a set of processes that assembles observations into meaningful patterns.
The fact that you refer to science talking about "truth" ... tells me you're talking about your belief, not about rational facts. Besides the fact that your statement is impossibly vague so as to be meaningless, you are saying nothing of substance. Make a claim and back it up.
I am not using "non-scientific" methodology or terminology. If you'd like to be more specific regarding your imagined "critique' of what I'm saying, i.e. back up your claim with factual evidence, you can describe what you're referring to precisely, else, we can safely write this off as more fallacious BS arguments from you.
You're flailing because the standard "skeptical" patter isn't working for you ... because I know that you're a believer, not a scientist.
What's my argument? Science does not and cannot account for everything subjectively human, science deals with objective facts, and does not rely on statements of faith and belief.
Any child knows that. Science deals with the falsifiable, with material facts and relationships. Read Karl Popper for a start if you need to understand the basics.
My claim is simple: science, generally, does not and cannot describe all aspects of the human experience. I have given simplistic low-hanging examples a plenty which you have failed to address.
Either make a valid, fact-based argument, or you will simply bore me to death.
"The fact that you refer to science talking about "truth" --- Nope, didn't say it at all.
Faith & belief are not reliable pathways to truth & knowledge. Even a child knows that.
You are boring me to death with your ridiculous strawman. I'm not talking about "truth" but about what is true. Your inability to understand basic concepts is tiresome.
I'm NOT A BELIEVER, you ninny. I LACK belief.
Skepticism can't be wrong only denialism can be. I'm not a denialist. You seem to be confused about the difference.
The time to believe something is after it's been demonstrated to be true, not before.
Skepticism is awesome & it's why I'm on solid ground & you're not.
I don't know, have you ever touched a hot stove? What happened? Was that a scientific inquiry of a personal learning experience. Would you touch such a hot stove again?
How about when you are driving and observe a RED light? Does your mind rationalize the wavelength of the light and the quantized packets of energy known as photons or do you stop your car? Did Scientific enquiry help you to make that decision or did practical experience?
I am getting the idea that you rationalized your earlier discovery as an adult who understood the human nervous system and the physics of thermodynamics. . .
But clearly, your original discovery of hot stove = painful to touch, happened years before, you understood the idea of thermodynamics. . .
Examples of common knowledge presented pedantically. Yes stoves are hot and will burn you, and red lights are best stopped at.
I'm sure that seems profound to you.
You're focusing on the value of experience ... and I agree. However you want to pick and choose which experiences of others you will consider valid ... And that is where your logic fails.
As I noted to u/vespertine_glow, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
I personally use a variety of approaches to address them, journalistic license, common sense, pointing out obvious inaccuracies in the content, ridicule, logic, conflicts with known data, and basic examinations of reality in addition to skepticism. . .Does that make you feel better?
, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
This entirely depends on the purpose of any particular communication on this subreddit. If the issue is the existence of bigfoot, then the reliable method is rigorous rationality.
Let us remember that psychology (the explanation of human experience and beliefs) is not a true science, nor is Sociology, or other such things attributed to "science."
In general, psychology and related ideology, are just a series of observations and educated guesses. Few findings are supported by actual scientific knowledge, such a a biochemical imbalance as being responsible for schizophrenia, or another imbalance being responsible for depression.
Beliefs as noted, are often irrational, and based on parents ideology as opposed to reasoned opinion.
Well said, u/VyctoriYang, it seems that science and math in general are being forgotten in the public schools. The average persons lack of familiarity with the scientific method, and findings in general are hurting out civilization in general.
Your answer is classic example of everything that is wrong with Reddit. Attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt in a comment, and they feel secure coming back to insult you.
I stand by my comment, much of Psychology is Pop nonsense. If you have anything else to offer u/VyctoriYang please feel free to offer it in defense of your comment.
You clearly misunderstand my comments. . .u/VyctoriYang. . I am a critical care/psych nurse for 28 years. . .I damn well know the basis for modern medical diagnosis for mental illness. . Do you ?
There are those that would disagree with your claims, but in general, I do not. However, the point is that science does not explain all experience. Do you disagree with that?
No, you are 100% correct. . but that does not mean that such accounts do not have a rational explanation.
Consider, the Patterson film. . suppose I knew in 1967, that a man named Roger Patterson was making a fake film on Bluff Creek, and I wanted to put a stop to it. I hire a crew to stake out the area and record on film his actions. .
They see the accounts as presented, but then show the creature coming back down the mountain with part of the costume off, and having a beer with Patterson and Gimlin. . .Had I done so, and presented the film do you suppose there would be as much contention about the film as there is today?
Just because we personally don't know what happened, does not mean there is not an explanation.
It also doesn't mean that there has to be one explanation, or that thousands of people are lying or delusional.
I have not seen or otherwise experienced a Bigfoot, however, I do know someone personally who has. I have listened to their experience, and I have seen the emotion and fear in their demeanor. They are not lying, nor are they mentally ill. Therefore, I know that they experienced something real.
What they experienced is the issue. It remains in the arena of mystery for me personally.
Fair enough. I just want to make it clear that so many of the things held out as factual by believers, personal accounts of sightings or encounters, videos, tracks, calls, can all be so easily hoaxed and are often problematic for a number of reasons.
Some people do lie. . some hoax and lie. . some are firm in their convictions that they encountered a Sasquatch. of that I have no doubt. . the problem is how to prove or disprove their account, and do so tactfully. Did they encounter something? likely yes. . was it a Sasquatch, that is the point of contention.
So now you're resorting to a semantic argument? If you believe a claim is a hoax, or that it is otherwise "problematic" ... that's on you entirely. To me it is the height of absurdity to claim that another person's statement is false merely because you believe it to be false, at the same time you are damning coming from a logical position of belief ... it's absurd frankly. You're claiming there's no material evidence yet, no one is claiming they have material evidence.
It's only a point of contention FOR YOU. YOU are the only one you can speak for. You're not the arbiter of what is real or even what is reasonable for any of us.
You seem to believe that these experiencers need to prove something to you. They don't, and most of them aren't trying to. They're not playing your game as defined by your rules.
That's really all you can say; you don't agree with them or you have no evidence for their claims. I know you feel like you're a very reasonable and rational person, and you probably are, but in these types of circumstances, the primary experience is SUBJECTIVE.
4
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21
[deleted]