VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:07:33 04/22/01 Sun
Author: OPB
Subject: Addendum
In reply to: OPB 's message, "Re: But where does that leave one?" on 17:48:53 04/22/01 Sun

In light of the impossibility of absolute certainty, the best approach to knowledge (IMO) is to develop a system that tends to confirm true beliefs and disconfirm false ones. This is what science has done. It's not unlike the legal system, where burdens of proof are clearly assigned, where there are rules about what can be admitted as evidence, and where there's recourse in case the system fails (i.e., a statement of the moment is not necessarily the final word).

Just as in Indiana you can't admit either hypnotic testimony or polygraphs into criminal evidence because they're dubious, science won't admit peyote visions or the feelings of the religious believer that God's talking to him. If Xians want their fantasties to interface with science, they can't question the foundations of the system without good reasons; instead, they have to provide evidence of the type and quality that science demands. Nothing else will do. I've noticed that a lot of "Christian rationalists" who attempt to scientifically back their faith end up questioning certain foundations of science to make their points; these objections are usually couched in terms like "a priori bias against the supernatural" or "a priori assumption of naturalism." Well, duh, science assumes naturalism and avoids the supernatural; that's a basic feature of the system.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • No matter how you pretty it up, shit is still shit -- SM78, 21:51:08 04/22/01 Sun
  • Mc Donald's is far more coherent than Christianity -- SM78, 22:06:55 04/22/01 Sun
  • Re: No matter how you pretty it up, shit is still shit -- OPB, 06:38:32 04/23/01 Mon
    Post a message:
    This forum requires an account to post.
    [ Create Account ]
    [ Login ]
    Forum timezone: GMT-8
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.