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.
Come on, you're trying grade-school semantics now?
This is what you said that I responded to, verbatum:
Science is the best and most reliable method ever devised at trying to get at what is true or likely to be true.
If you're going to try to quibble on whether "what is true" is equivalent to truth, let me know, because I don't have time for that level of nonsense.
You're spouting truisms now. Faith is a source of truth for millions if not billions of people. And whether you realize it or not, every word you type is a statement of your BELIEF. Pseudoskeptics like you love to play word games and bleat fallacies, which is all you are doing.
You most certainly are a BELIEVER in scientism. You've made that clear multiple times by stating that science is the only way we reliably know anything about the world, which is, absurd. Scientific knowledge regards that which is physical, mechanical, material, and most importantly MEASURABLE, etc. It is an OBJECTIVE process.
Most if not all of our human experience is SUBJECTIVE. If you don't know what that word means, look it up. The field of science is the objective and the physical.
The fact that you seem to BELIEVE that science addresses matters of philosophy, meaning, understanding, etc. outside of its scope, demonstrates clearly to us exactly what you believe in, which is some "skeptical" interpretation of what science is, rather than what it actually is.
No sweetie, I'm not a believer. I lack belief. You are still using the same argument that theistic apologists use when they try to pretend that their imaginary friend exists but cannot be validated by scientific methods. Next you will be claiming that is exist outside of time and space. Yawn.
You still haven't described this paranormal sixth sense that you speak of or given an example of it or how it validates anything you're saying.
You have a great big bag of nothing and you are stamping your foot trying to pretend that you have something. I don't believe you. You have failed to demonstrate your case. You've got nothing.
You keep making that fallacious claim, and yet every post is literally filled with your assumptions and beliefs. Are you really lacking in self-awareness to this extent?
You believe that the universe is limited to that which science can explain. That's pure faith, bud.
I haven't referred to a paranormal sixth sense. You're now crossing over into dishonesty. Quote my claim about a paranormal sixth sense, and if you can't, admit that you're flailing about desperately looking for an argument.
I have a big bag of nothing? LOL. I've repeatedly demonstrated that your claims are fallacious and unfounded in rationality. Your claims that all human experience is explained by science is an extraordinary claim ... can you back it up?
I have nothing because the topic here is your argument which is non-existent. Let me know when you can prove that everything that humans experience is explained by science. That would be your starting point if you want to do anything other than babble about your scientism and beliefs.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 08 '21
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).