Hope,
I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - …
Ah, the old “Get you an' yer fancy edumacation” defence eh?” Look, it’s simple enough – logically false arguments are always wrong arguments, and when you collapse into them all that’s necessary therefore it to show that they are logically false. It happened that in this case the mistake has a name – “reification” – which I mentioned deliberately in parenthesis so as not to deflect from the central point.
Why then focus on the terminology rather than address where you went off the rails?
…but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.
And as I’ve already explained that’s an entirely false analogy because all parties agree that both rugby and soccer exist. You on the other hand have all your work ahead of you still finally to demonstrate that “the supernatural” exists at all, and moreover (also finally) to propose a method to test that claim.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily.
That’s not true. “Satisfactorily” in this case means “to my, Hope’s, satisfaction” but you need at least a basic grounding in science (and maths and logic too) to grasp whether the explanations are in fact “satisfactory” within the context of the various methods these disciplines bring to the table.
If on the other hand you want to abandon those disciplines in favour of – well, what? Anecdote? Assertion? Wishful thinking? – then finally propose a method to allow your claims to be examined and tested.
Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts.
Also not true. “Evidence” is for the person making the claim (that’s called the “burden of proof” by the way), and you should no more demand from me evidence to disprove your conjecture about “God” than I should demand from you evidence that disproved my claim about pixies (you favourite negative proof fallacy in other words).
Oh, and arguments that are logically robust are qualitatively “more valid” than whatever pops into your head pending a method of any kind to validate it, unless you really want to allow in too whatever pops into anyone else’s heads – about anything – on the same epistemic footing as your “God”.
I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong. Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
Depends what you mean by “deals with”. Science does deal some aspects of “right and wrong” – by mapping for example the parts of the brain that “light up” when dealing with moral questions, especially when those question are complex and different parts of the brain are involved.
If though you mean something more like, ”science can’t tell us what’s right and what’s wrong” then yes, but so what? “Right” and “wrong” are judgments, and we exercise a mix of instinct and opinion about these matters to the best of our abilities but with no claim to objective truths. They are in other words what we make them (which is why they can change so much over time for example) whereas an apple will always fall to the ground regardless of the opinions of the person dropping it, and regardless of when in history they happen to do it.
Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were. Do you have any evidence for that claim.
It’s not my claim. Rather the “claim” – which in this case happens to factually true – is that, so far at least, no-one has managed to provide a coherent argument to indicate that there
is a “reality beyond the scientific” (whatever that means). That’s not to say that there necessarily isn’t one – that would be overreaching – but it is to say that no-one been able to demonstrate it, or even for that matter to define what they mean by it. That is, the assertion "supernatural" is “not even wrong”.
Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part…
Yes it is – it’s a straw man in fact.
…because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted.
None that I’m aware of. The only examples I’ve seen you attempt have been so riddled with bad thinking as to be effectively self-refuting. If though you seriously think you have a non-refutable example, then by all means post it here.
You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist.
Again, no: what I’m claiming is that there’s
no reason to think that they do exist – a very different thing.
You now need to provide evidence to that effect.
Evidence for your straw man version of what I do say?
Nope. As ever if you seriously think there to be an interventionist “God” then the burden of proof remains with you.
