The Argument Against Arguing Against Religion

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.

In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.

Chumly,

Quote:

trial and error, without rationality or scientific methodology.

I would say trial and error is both rational and scientific to it's core.
It's a form of testing for truth.

So I guess courts should stop accepting crime scene evidence.

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.

In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.

So I guess courts should stop accepting crime scene evidence. You dare to assert that logic and science are not generally good methods to get an idea of what probably happened in the past?

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

dok you still out there? I still have more questions if your in the mood to answer them.

Hi Dok,

I'll give on more example. My spaceship is running out of resources, I am equidistant from 4 equally likely to support life planets. I can garner no more data. I have no more time left to decide.

Which do I choose?
Why?
How can I leverage my survival to be "both rational and scientific to it's core"?

Yes, people are very hard to predict. Yes, our predictions about peoples behaviors will often be wrong. But this is only due to insufficient information to make more acurate predictions, right?

real life wrote:

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

I did. You implied that using science and logic was not a reliable method for intepreting the past, compared to wishful thinking, I suppose:

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

I did. You implied that using science and logic was not a reliable method for intepreting the past, compared to wishful thinking, I suppose:

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

I didn't even address the question of logic.

I discussed the nature of evidence.

If it happened in the past and no one observed it, then your evidence is circumstantial, no?

Fossils, layers of rock, etc are there but there is no observer to tell us how they came to be where they are.

We can infer and attempt to draw interpretitive conclusions , but need to recognize that they are not absolute and that the evidence may also be interpreted in ways other than what we have chosen.

For instance, you can study sedimentary rock layer 'x' and you notice that there are no fossils of organism 'b' in this layer. Does that mean that organism 'b' did not exist at the time this layer of sedimentary rock was formed?

No.

It may simply mean that no representatives from this species were buried in the sediment as the layer formed.

Perhaps they were mobile enough to escape the water that formed the layer.

Perhaps this few square yards of dirt was not where they were buried and they are yet to be found in the very same strata 1000 yards that direction, where we haven't dug yet.

Perhaps their preferred habitat was miles away.

But it doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time the layer was formed. Drawing too broad of a conclusion from circumstantial evidence is an easy way to err.

Chumly wrote:

Hi Dok,

I'll give on more example. My spaceship is running out of resources, I am equidistant from 4 equally likely to support life planets. I can garner no more data. I have no more time left to decide.

Which do I choose?
Why?
How can I leverage my survival to be "both rational and scientific to it's core"?

I do believe you are cross posting.
Anyhow, given that scenario any of the 4 choices would be equally rational.

So what role then does experience play in all this? Because what I believe is that a lot of what we do and say comes directly from our experience. So to accurately predict how I may react to something you would need to know every experience I've had pertaining to that something. Which would pretty much be impossible.

Another question for you dok:

If you and I were to have the exact same experience. Seeing that we are two different people wouldn't that then almost guarantee that though it was the same experience it would have a different effect on both of us?