scientific method versus belief systems

harrylin

This is a retake of a recent question that was perhaps misunderstood by the moderators.
As a reminder:
"As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems."

Consequently, I'll leave out parts of Dumbfish and Alan that may have incited the "lock":

"According to someone, belief in the existence of a universe is just as unfounded as belief in a god, both are equally valid theories. We can't know anything absolutely for certain other than that thoughts exist.

I'm a mere Mathematics student, so I'm not that well versed in philosophical arguments and I was unable to counter him, but something about his point dosn't sit right with me. I was wondering if any of you had counter arguments, or wether his point was valid."

I interpret the above question as a request for references (see the new rules) on the validity of the scientific method as a foundation for our thinking, compared to that of belief systems. Could the scientific method be claimed to be "better founded" in some way? In view of recent issues such as the teaching of Creationism at schools, I suppose that there should be ample sources in philosophy of science literature.

However, it's not a simple matter as many belief systems relate to similar, evidence based judgments as the scientific method and scientific theories include (often unwittingly) concepts of things that cannot be measured.

A partial reply can be found in the thread that I started on the scientific method (which got little response, likely because it was moved to a social forum at which almost nobody looks):
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=598724

This is also a partial follow-up of the thread on the scientific method:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=604109

DaveC426913

Please read the Philosophy rules before posting.
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

harrylin

I did read and based my post on them and and referred to them, in particular these (I think that we should help Dumbfish to find resource material for his question, and I made a start by pointing in the right direction):

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"
- http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. It is also permissible to discuss concepts of God or gods, so long as these discussions proceed in a rigorous philosophical fashion and do not draw from or apply to any given religious belief system in particular.
- http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93343

Did I miss something essential?

DaveC426913

10 chars

harrylin

I certainly read points 1 and 2. Obviously point 2 is an exception to point 1, else it would not make any sense. Do you mean that point 2 is untrue, so that people may not make requests for resources on this forum?!

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

PS I now brought this up in the thread about those rules.

Evo

Dave is correct, this does not meet the guidelines.