Epistemological Standards in Theory-Formation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the epistemological standards in theory formation, particularly focusing on the roles of science, religion, and philosophy in understanding existence and consciousness. Participants explore the nature of beliefs, the limitations of scientific inquiry, and the implications of supernatural claims.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that beliefs, particularly religious ones, may interfere with objectivity in scientific inquiry.
  • There is a contention regarding whether science serves as the ultimate epistemological standard for evaluating all claims, with some suggesting that it cannot encompass everything that exists.
  • One viewpoint suggests that while science cannot prove everything, it is still a valuable tool for understanding nature, though it does not provide absolute answers.
  • Another participant posits that consciousness may not exist in nature, raising questions about the nature of existence and the role of human perception in understanding it.
  • Some argue that the usefulness of a theory does not necessarily correlate with its truthfulness, particularly in the context of religion.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for science, philosophy, and religion to share common ground in their exploration of existence.
  • One participant challenges the notion that consciousness can be entirely explained by scientific means, suggesting it may be a human construct rather than a natural phenomenon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the role of science versus religion or philosophy in understanding existence. Disagreements persist regarding the nature of consciousness and the validity of supernatural claims.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of scientific inquiry and the potential for unmeasurable phenomena, suggesting that some aspects of existence may lie beyond human comprehension.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the intersections of science, philosophy, and religion, as well as those exploring the nature of consciousness and existence.

  • #31
sneez said:
what exactly do we mean by CREATION and what exactly are these acts of creation?

Because if you talk bible creation (6000yr ago, in 6days) then evidence speaks against you. SO what exactly you mean by creation for our understanding?
Good question. I think Loseyourname was the first to raise the question by stating, "No method of science excludes the possibility that the universe was created, but the hypothesis is excluded from being evaluated in the sense that no scientific methodology can evaluate such a claim."

If, as sneez suggests, we mean biblical creation, then loseyourname is right. But if we mean by 'creation' that there was some component of deliberate conscious action involved in the origination of whatever part of reality we want to consider, then there are many possibilities some of which can be investigated by scientific methodology and others may be investigated if only the methods of science were extended somewhat.

Warm regards,

Paul
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PIT2 said:
Then the pope would have the ultimate rigorous conditions. This isn't exactly something to be proud of.
Has anyone asked the Pope how he decides what is true and what not true?

I would be interested to examine the rigour of his method for determining truth. :wink:

Best Regards
 
  • #33
I'm not convinced that rigour plays any part in his method. In fact I'm not even sure that he has a method.
 
  • #34
How does the Pope "know" the truth ?--he knows these words--John 14:6...Jesus said ...I am the truth...
 
  • #35
Being nattily attired is proof of knowledge in any business.
 
  • #36
I think this Pope stuff is getting way OT. But if you want to know, the Roman Catholic Church does not believe that inspiration ended with the apostles, there is also the communion of the saints. Throughout the history of the church various people have had visions where they received information from some saint, or most often from one or another manifestation of the Blessed Virgin (i.e. the Virgin Mary). And the Pope was declared by the First Vatican Council to be infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. Not only may he receive inspirations himself but he is thought to be able to discern which inspirations of others are true and which false.

Not exactly experimentally accessible.
 
  • #37
Rade said:
How does the Pope "know" the truth ?--he knows these words--John 14:6...Jesus said ...I am the truth...
How (ie by what means) does he know they are true? Where is the rigorous procedure that he uses for determining the truth of these words?

Best Regards
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
16K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K