Re: Mind and Consciousness (God version)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science is the only means we have of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. You missed that bit out when you quoted me.

Sorry, I was assuming everyone Knew we were talking about the real world. Let me correct it then and ask you for scientific evidence that science is the only means of establishing the truth with respect to the real world.

How do I justify my assertion?

The only way, according to you, to do so....by providing the scientific evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

About the observable world, so far as we know yes. More generally, logic (of which science is a sub-set) is the only known method of establishing truths. It is of course theoretically possible that someone has come up with another method and decided to keep it a secret, but that’s a point with no practical significance. 

See above.

What makes you think there needs to be one?

Yes – the only method anyone has brought to our attention and the only method full stop are not the same thing. The latter is the straw man version you've attempted here.

Oh observable world is it. It didn’t take long to see that appeal to the the term “real world” was a crock.

The  Atheist Father Brown of Saffron Walden once again rescues a hapless parishioner.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh observable world is it. It didn’t take long to see that appeal to the the term “real world” was a crock.

The  Atheist Father Brown of Saffron Walden once again rescues a hapless parishioner.

Science verifies the observable world – by observing it. Absent another method of verification, the rest is on a spectrum from just guessing ("God" etc) to logically cogent hypotheses (the Higgs-Boson pre-CERN etc). In other words, if it isn't observable we cannot know that it's real.

What point did you even think you were making here?   

[jeremyp]

Sorry, I was assuming everyone Knew we were talking about the real world. Let me correct it then and ask you for scientific evidence that science is the only means of establishing the truth with respect to the real world.

I already answered that question. We observe no other method of establishing the truth about the real world that works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I already answered that question. We observe no other method of establishing the truth about the real world that works.

Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.

What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.
As Bluehillside reminds us your error was to treat the empirical world as the real world.

[Outrider]

Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.

And no expectation that there would be, because mathematics doesn't make claims about the world, it makes claims about numbers. You can apply those numbers, and those claims, in certain circumstances, to model things in the real world.

What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.

And, again, who is claiming that there is? It's the only reliable one we have at the moment - if you want to add something to the options, crack on. All you need is a methodology and some demonstration that it's consistently reliable within readily understood limits.

As Bluehillside reminds us your error was to treat the empirical world as the real world.

Whereas your error was to, once again, straw man people's position. No-one is saying that no alternatives to science are possible; however, where claims are contrary to established science that's problematic, and to discount science because it's not absolute but to offer no alternative but guesswork is just intellectually bankrupt.

O.

[jeremyp]

Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.

Again you omit my qualification of "the real world". I didn't tack that qualification on for fun.

Mathematics, by itself, tells us nothing about the real world. In fact mathematics is tautological. It doesn't tell us anything.

As an example, does mathematics tell us that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees? If your mathematical education stopped in school, you might say yes. But it actually doesn't What mathematics tells us is "if this set of five axioms are all true then the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees". How can we know that the set of five axioms are true in the real world? We can draw some triangles and measure the angles. This is doing science. (Spoiler: it turns out that in general, the angles of triangles don't add up to 180 degrees in the real world).

All mathematical theorems are really like this. They are all based on a certain set of axioms that are just assumed to be true but need not necessarily apply in the real world.

What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.

I do. First of all we note that science is extraordinarily successful. Second, we note there aren't any other methods, or if there are, people like you seem unbelievably reluctant to tell us what they are.

You could win this whole argument simply by coming up with an alternate method to science but you won't because, if you could you would have done it by now.

Edit: that's not to say that there is no alternate method but you don't know what it is and neither does anybody else. So for now, science is the only reliable method we have of finding out about the real world.