A simple reason why creationism is false

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Royce,

I don't understand how something non-empirical could be counted as evidence with the same weight as empirical evidence. The idea is ridiculous, anti-reason, anti-science. I don't think you are liars, and I think your experiences are "real", I just don't think they carry the significance you assign to them.Scientifically, it obviously can't be counted as evidence. Nor would it carry the same scientific weight.

It is not scientific, however. Is is subjective and anecdotal evidence and within that paradigm it carries the same weight as any other evidence. Again, applying the wrong tool to the wrong job and expecting the same standards is not realistic or logical.
Why would you attempt to measure the temperature of a pot of water with a yard stick or kill a fly with a sledge hammer?

After all, I've done the meditation thing, the OBE, etc, and never for a moment did I think there was anything non-physical about it.

If that is the case then our disagreement is simply our different points of view, the way we look at things. You see everything as physical whereas I see things a spiritual, subjective and objective yet all of the one reality. IOW, we see the same things the same ways but have different names for them and I make a distinction between them whereas you don't.
The other difference it that you seem to look at things is a strict scientific way whereas I apply different standards to different types of phenomena. I can't say either of us is right or wrong. It just seems to me more reasonable to use different tools for different jobs.
It is not a matter of lowering standards. It is a matter of not applying the rule for empirical evidence to non-empirical subjects.
The reason science does not see any evidence of these kinds of phenomena is that it is not empirical in the first place. Most admit that but some don't and clam that there is no scientific empirical evidence and that proves that it does not exist. This in itself is not scientific, as you well know, but they still claim the authority of science in making their claims. This, to me is unreasonable, illogical, dishonest and non-scientific.

 

[Zero]

LOL, anecdotal "evidence" is the absolute worst thing we've got. Period, par none, may as well not even bother with anecdotes. If it isn't empirical, how can we count it as evidence? The short answer is that we simply can't. IF you don't want to submit your ideas and thinking to the stringent standards that science requires, that's fine. Just don't expect to make claims about the real world and it go unquestioned.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Royce

The reason science does not see any evidence of these kinds of phenomena is that it is not empirical in the first place. Most admit that but some don't and clam that there is no scientific empirical evidence and that proves that it does not exist. This in itself is not scientific, as you well know, but they still claim the authority of science in making their claims. This, to me is unreasonable, illogical, dishonest and non-scientific.

Most of whome? Most scientists? Most general people of the world? I'm sorry to inform you but the far majority of people deeply embedded in the field of science would disagree with you.

And to claim that holding observational empirical evidence above all else is "non-scientific" is silly and I don't even want to get into responding to your claim of it being "dishonest"

 

[Zero]

I am confused as to how someone can claim to speak logically about non-empirical "experience", since by definition it cannot be observed in such a way as to make solid declarations about it.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, anecdotal "evidence" is the absolute worst thing we've got. Period, par none, may as well not even bother with anecdotes. If it isn't empirical, how can we count it as evidence? The short answer is that we simply can't. IF you don't want to submit your ideas and thinking to the stringent standards that science requires, that's fine. Just don't expect to make claims about the real world and it go unquestioned.

Your "real" world and my "real" world are obviously different. Believe it or not, Zero, there is life outside of science. There is in fact a whole world, a whole universe that couldn't care less about science and it's rules of evidence.
I don't want to submit my ideas and thinking to the stringent standards of science because science, real science admits that it cannot and is not meant to consider such ideas and thinking. It isn't science its is philosophy and this is the philosophy forum of the Physics Forum.
I don't expect to make claims about the real world and have them go unquestioned. I don't expect non-scientific but philosophical statements, non-empirical but subjective statements or claim to be subject to that which itself claims it is not capable of considering because it is outside its field.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Your "real" world and my "real" world are obviously different. Believe it or not, Zero, there is life outside of science. There is in fact a whole world, a whole universe that couldn't care less about science and it's rules of evidence.
I don't want to submit my ideas and thinking to the stringent standards of science because science, real science admits that it cannot and is not meant to consider such ideas and thinking. It isn't science its is philosophy and this is the philosophy forum of the Physics Forum.
I don't expect to make claims about the real world and have them go unquestioned. I don't expect non-scientific but philosophical statements, non-empirical but subjective statements or claim to be subject to that which itself claims it is not capable of considering because it is outside its field.

Ummm...ok. If you say so. Yeah, there's a whole wide world out there, and it is cheapened when people try to pretend it is some sort of magic trick. There's MY philosophy for you.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Most of whom? Most scientists? Most general people of the world? I'm sorry to inform you but the far majority of people deeply embedded in the field of science would disagree with you.

Please read my post again as you seem to have mis understood it's meaning and intent. Yes I meant most scientist admit that science does not consider non-empirical, non-objective subjects because they are outside of the domain of science and cannot be answered or addressed scientifically but belong in the domain of philosophy.

And to claim that holding observational empirical evidence above all else is "non-scientific" is silly and I don't even want to get into responding to your claim of it being "dishonest"

It is, as I said, non-scientific to apply the rules of science to that which is not science but philosophy. I do not use the rules of chess while playing checkers. to do so knowingly would be dishonest.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...ok. If you say so. Yeah, there's a whole wide world out there, and it is cheapened when people try to pretend it is some sort of magic trick. There's MY philosophy for you.

Well, I for one do not cheapen it despite what you may or may not think of my philosophy and beliefs. I do not believe in magic nor do I invoke magic to explain or excuse anything. I am not "religious"
and that is part of my problem.
People confuse or identify spiritual with organized religion and chicanery. I or my beliefs are condemned by association. I don't know how to disassociate spritualism, the belief in God, the creator (and master) of the universe, from organized religion, bible thumpers or fortune tellers, mediums or other such frauds.
It is difficult for me to get beyond this bias that I share to discuss seriously any such beliefs of philosophies. Ah well, such is life.

 

[Zero]

"Spiritualism" is religion without the brand name. It still resorts to cheap parlor tricks in lieu of rational explanations.