A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Long statements such as Alma's, sound to me like a lot of words that have very little meaning. 

Stay away from difficult subjects then, like quantum physics, and don't read any books over 100 words long.

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes. Science cannot answer questions about purpose or morality either.  In fact science cannot answer any questions which are important in our lives, whom to marry, why it is wrong to kill people, where we came from. where we are going, or what college we should attend.

It restricts itself to theories about how things work.  Obviously how things work is important but they are not the most important questions in anyone's life

Yet it appears that more and more non-believers appeal to science to disprove the existence of God. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet it appears that more and more non-believers make an appeal to science to disprove the existence of God. 

I know.They are uneducated.  Philosophically educated atheists do not go down that road. 

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

Quote

The New Atheists

The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views.  Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.

In spite of their different approaches and occupations (only Dennett is a professional philosopher), the New Atheists tend to share a general set of assumptions and viewpoints. These positions constitute the background theoretical framework that is known as the New Atheism. The framework has a metaphysical component, an epistemological component, and an ethical component.  Regarding the metaphysical component, the New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind.  The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard. This moral component sets them apart from other prominent historical atheists such as Nietzsche and Sartre, and it plays a pivotal role in their arguments because it is used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways, although Dennett is more reserved than the other three.

The New Atheists make substantial use of the natural sciences in both their criticisms of theistic belief and in their proposed explanations of its origin and evolution. They draw on science for recommended alternatives to religion. They believe empirical science is the only (or at least the best) basis for genuine knowledge of the world, and they insist that a belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. Their conclusion is that science fails to show that there is a God and even supports the claim that such a being probably does not exist. What sciencewill show about religious belief, they claim, is that this belief can be explained as a product ofbiological evolution. Moreover, they think that it is possible to live a satisfying non-religious life on the basis of secular morals and scientific discoveries.

Since atheism continues to be a highly controversial philosophical position, one would expect that the New Atheists would devote a fair amount of space to a careful (and, of course, critical) consideration of arguments for God’s existence  and that they would also spend a corresponding amount of time formulating a case for the non-existence of God.  However, none of them addresses either theistic or atheistic arguments to any great extent. Dawkins does devote a chapter apiece to each of these tasks, but he has been criticized for engaging in an overly cursory evaluation of theistic arguments and for ignoring the philosophical literature in natural theology.   The literature overlooked by Dawkins addresses issues relevant to his claim that there almost certainly is no God. Harris, who thinks that atheism is obviously true, does not dedicate much space to a discussion of arguments for or against theism.  He does sketch a brief version of the cosmological argument for God’s existence but asserts that the final conclusion does not follow because the argument does not rule out alternative possibilities for the universe’s existence. Harris also hints at reasons to deny God’s existence by pointing to unexplained evil and “unintelligent design” in the world. Hitchens includes chapters entitled “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False” and “Arguments from Design,” but his more journalistic treatment of the cases for and against God’s existence amounts primarily to the claim that the God hypothesis is unnecessary since science can now explain what theism was formerly thought to be required to explain, including phenomena such as the appearance of design in the universe. After considering the standard arguments for God’s existence and rehearsing standard objections to them, Dennett argues that the concept of God is insufficiently determinate for it to be possible to know what proposition is at issue in the debate over God’s existence.

 

Quote

Secular Fulfillment

Each of the New Atheists recommends or at least alludes to a non-religious means of personal fulfillment and even collective well-being. Harris advocates a “spirituality” that involves meditation leading to happiness through an eradication of one’s sense of self. He thinks that scientific exploration into the nature of human consciousness will provide a progressively more adequate natural and rational basis for such a practice. For inspiration in a Godless world, Dawkins looks to the power of science to open the mind and satisfy the psyche. He celebrates the liberation of human beings from ignorance due to the growing and assumedly limitless capacity of science to explain the universe and everything in it. Hitchens hints at his own source of secular satisfaction by claiming that the natural is wondrous enough for anyone. He expresses his hope for a renewed Enlightenment focused on human beings, based on unrestricted scientific inquiry, and eventually productive of a new humane civilization. Dennett believes that a purely naturalistic spirituality is possible through a selfless attitude characterized by humble curiosity about the world’s complexities resulting in a realization of the relative unimportance of one’s personal preoccupations.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

So as the last paragraph shows, even these guys know that their atheistic position is insufficient on its own to reach personal fulfillment and requires a secular form of "spirituality".

To be brutally frank the yahoos on this board have no clue or understanding of this point.

The human psyche requires having a meaningful life.  If one believes in no God, one still has to invent a substitute based in their own image.

Wait- based in the image of man?   How close is that to man being the image of God??

I knew that before I became LDS and that was WHY I became LDS.  A "Human God" solves the problem perfectly for me- one can be a humanistic atheist.  As such, humanism becomes theology.  One becomes the best human one can be by reaching for the perfection of exaltation.

Edited May 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know.They are uneducated.  Philosophically educated atheists do not go down that road. 

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

So as the last paragraph shows, even these guys know that their atheistic position is insufficient on its own to reach personal fulfillment and requires a secular form of "spirituality".

To be brutally frank the yahoos on this board have no clue or understanding of this point.

The human psyche requires having a meaningful life.  If one believes in no God, one still has to invent a substitute based in their own image.

Wait- based in the image of man?   How close is that to man being the image of God??

I knew that before I became LDS and that was WHY I became LDS.  A "Human God" solves the problem perfectly for me- one can be a humanistic atheist.  As such, humanism becomes theology.  One becomes the best human one can be by reaching for the perfection of exaltation.

Uh oh.

That was over a hundred words. 

[Thinking]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suppose, if it is delicious to you. Please stay on the topic or leave the discussion. Can you propose a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God?

I was simply pointing out the flaw in the description of the experiment in your quoted text from Alma 32 from the OP. How is that off topic?

As far as a scientific experiment goes, I don't think we could create one that would prove absolutely whether God exists or doesn't.

[mfbukowski]

This is not for the yahoos, but an impartial summary of the present state of philosophy of religion can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Sorry that it actually takes time and a lot of words to read.

Let me summarize it for you

The idea that religious ideas can or must be verified by science is dead.

There.  Was that short enough for everyone?

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is very important. Mormonism is not falsifiable. 

Sure it is. It just has not been done yet. Since the best way of testing it would be death there is also the problem of returning and reporting results.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Believers are challenged by non-believers to give scientific proof that God exists, as if there were some sort of experiment that could be devised that consistently forces God to reveal Himself to whomever tries it. Such an experiment would have to preserve the agency of man. An experiment does exist, but it sets certain conditions that must be met in order for it to succeed. It is described in the parable of the seed in Alma 32:

But can this experiment satisfy the demands of non-believers? The conditions for this experiment to succeed are specified by the missionary Ammon in Alma 26:

Can a person test God without having a sincere and transparent intent to be willing to repent and accept all that follows from discovering God's existence? Is this an experiment non-believers are willing to perform? If not, would someone propose such an experiment that would be acceptable? (Cutting off a head or leg and having God restore it has already been spoken for).

Alma 32 does represent the experimental method, even though a good many atheists might balk at having to exercise any faith at all -- even for a test.  However, Buddhist and Hindu masters/gurus often require just such mental commitment from their students in order for there to be measurable progress (physiological responses to the training are real).

Another method applies strict science and statistics to the problem, as for Hoyle & Wickramasingh, in which the universe is seen to be "fine tuned" (and "just right" for Goldilocks) too often to be mere happenstance.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not for the yahoos, but an impartial summary of the present state of philosophy of religion can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Sorry that it actually takes time and a lot of words to read.

Let me summarize it for you

The idea that religious ideas can or must be verified by science is dead.

There.  Was that short enough for everyone?

 

Now for those who can read more than a hundred words, here it is.  I have even bolded sections so you can skip everything else.

Quote

 

In the history of the debate over positivism, the most radical charge was that positivism is self-refuting. The empiricist criterion of meaning itself does not seem to be a statement that expresses the formal relation of ideas, nor does it appear to be empirically verifiable. How might one empirically verify the principle? At best, the principle of verification seems to be a recommendation as to how to describe those statements that positivists are prepared to accept as meaningful. But then, how might a dispute about which other statements are meaningful be settled in a non-arbitrary fashion? To religious believers for whom talk of “Brahman” and “God” is at the center stage of meaningful discourse, the use of the principle of empirical verification will seem arbitrary and question-begging. If the positivist principle is tightened up too far, it seems to threaten various propositions that at least appear to be highly respectable, such as scientific claims about physical processes and events that are not publicly observable. For example, what are we to think of states of the universe prior to all observation of physical strata of the cosmos that cannot be observed directly or indirectly but only inferred as part of an overriding scientific theory? Or what about the mental states of other persons, which may ordinarily be reliably judged, but which, some argue, are under-determined by external, public observation? A person's subjective states—how one feels—can be profoundly elusive to external observers and even to the person him or herself. Can you empirically observe another person's sense of happiness? Arguably, the conscious, subjective states of persons resist airtight verification and the evidence of such states does not meet positivist's standards (van Cleve 1999, Taliaferro 1994). Also worrisome was the wholesale rejection by positivists of ethics as a cognitive, normative practice. The dismissal of ethics as non-cognitive had some embarrassing ad hominum force against an empiricist like Ayer, who regarded ethical claims as lacking any truth value and yet at the same time he construed empirical knowledge in terms of having the right to certain beliefs. Can an ethics of belief be preserved if one dispenses with the normativity of ethics?

The strict empiricist account of meaning was also charged as meaningless on the grounds that there is no coherent, clear, basic level of experience with which to test propositional claims. The experiential “given” is simply too malleable (this has been called “the myth of the given”), often reflecting prior conceptual judgments and, once one appreciates the open-textured character of experience, it may be proposed that virtually any experience can verify or provide some evidence for anything. A mystic might well claim to experience the unity of a timeless spirit everywhere present. Ayer allowed that in principle mystical experience might give meaning to religious terms. Those who concede this appeared to be on a slippery slope leading from empirical verificationism to mystical verificationism (Alston 1991). A growing number of philosophers in the 1960s and 1970s were led to conclude that the empiricist challenge was not decisive. Critical assessments of positivism can be found in work by, among others, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and John Foster.

One of the most sustained lessons from the encounter between positivism and the philosophy of religion is the importance of assessing the meaning of individual beliefs in comprehensive terms. Carl Hempel developed the following critique of positivism, pointing the way to a more comprehensive analysis of the meaning of ostensible propositional claims. Hempel's observations apply with equal force to the philosophy of meaning and science, as well as to the philosophy of religion.

But no matter how one might reasonably delimit the class of sentences qualified to introduce empirically significant terms, this new approach [by the positivists] seems to me to lead to the realization that cognitive significance cannot well be construed as a characteristic of individual sentences, but only of more or less comprehensive systems of sentences (corresponding roughly to scientific theories). A closer study of this point suggests strongly that… the idea of cognitive significance, with its suggestion of a sharp distinction between significant and non-significant sentences or systems of such, has lost its promise and fertility… and that it had better be replaced by certain concepts which admit of differences in degree, such as the formal simplicity of a system; its explanatory and predictive power; and its degree of conformation relative to the available evidence. The analysis and theoretical reconstruction of these concepts seems to offer the most promising way of advancing further the clarification of the issues implicit in the idea of cognitive significance. (Hempel 1959, 129)

If Hempel is right, the project initiated by Ayer had to be qualified, taking into account larger theoretical frameworks. Religious claims could not be ruled out at the start but should be allowed a hearing with competing views of cognitive significance. Ronald Hepburn summarizes a widely held conviction that complements Hempel's position: “There can be no short-cut in the philosophy of religion past the painstaking examination and re-examination of problems in the entire field… . No single, decisive verification-test, no solemn Declaration of Meaninglessness, can relieve us of the labor” (Hepburn 1963, 50). Ayer himself later conceded that the positivist account of meaning was unsatisfactory (Ayer 1973).

With the retreat of positivism in the 1970s, philosophers of religion re-introduced concepts of God, competing views of the sacred, and the like, which were backed by arguments that appealed not to narrow scientific confirmation but to broad considerations of coherence, breadth of explanation, simplicity, religious experience, and other factors. But before turning to this material, it is important to consider a debate within philosophy of religion that was largely inspired by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

 

 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you mean "falsified?" Please stay on the topic.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the subject.  The topic is a scientific test.  As such if must be falsifiable. 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the subject.  The topic is a scientific test.  As such if must be falsifiable. 

Perhaps someone else needs education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Kuhn_and_Lakatos
 

Quote

 

Kuhn and Lakatos[edit]

Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic of science, Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examined in detail the history of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing a 'paradigm' is difficult, as it requires an individual scientist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox theory.

Some falsificationists saw Kuhn's work as a vindication, since it provided historical evidence that science progressed by rejecting inadequate theories, and that it is the decision, on the part of the scientist, to accept or reject a theory that is the crucial element of falsificationism. Foremost amongst these was Imre Lakatos.

Lakatos attempted to explain Kuhn's work by arguing that science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of naïve falsification. In Lakatos' approach, a scientist works within a research program that corresponds roughly with Kuhn's 'paradigm'. Whereas Popper rejected the use of ad hochypotheses as unscientific, Lakatos accepted their place in the development of new theories.[14]

Feyerabend[edit]

Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos' argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule,epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.

Sokal and Bricmont[edit]

In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)

They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.

David Miller, a contemporary philosopher of critical rationalism, has attempted to defend Popper against these claims.[15] Miller argues that astrology does not lay itself open to falsification, while astronomy does, and this is the litmus test for science.

Economics[edit]

Karl Popper argued that Marxism shifted from falsifiable to unfalsifiable.[16]

Some economists, such as those of the Austrian School, believe that macroeconomics is empirically unfalsifiable and that thus the only appropriate means to understand economic events is by logically studying the intentions of individual economic decision-makers, based on certain fundamental truths.[17][18][19] Prominent figures within the Austrian School of economics Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek were associates of Karl Popper's, with whom they co-founded the Mont Pelerin Society.

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, it is true. Please stay on the topic or leave the conversation. Can you propose a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God?

You did not read what I said, again. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sure it is. It just has not been done yet

How is our church falsifiable? Falsifiability is the ability of something to be proven false. Just ask any apologist, that will never happen no matter what. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 Since the best way of testing it would be death there is also the problem of returning and reporting results.

and that makes it non-falsifiable. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Alma 32 does represent the experimental method

It is not a scientific method. It might work for you, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Please see 2:15 to 3:30. 

Religious experiments might be real, but they are not science. "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

 

i

Edited May 16, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The question is, "please suggest a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of God."

 

Please stay on topic. You, as the believer, must provide a scientific experiment that proves the existence of God. A non-believer cannot, by definition, prove the existence of something that isn't. Equally so, a non-believer cannot dis-prove something that isn't.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner. 

[Gray]

Alma 32 isn't  a scientific test. It's a subjective exercise in finding out what beliefs work for you. Very utilitarian.

For us pantheists, all of science points directly to the existence of God.

[James Tunney]

The problem with Alma 32 is that it is a sales method that works on pretty much everything.  Assume the conclusion you want (faith).  Then try out the religion or product.  Have an emotional experience.  Then the handlers (missionaries or advertising execs) guide or manipulate you to think that the emotional response is related to what you were supposedly "testing."  And voila, a conversion!  Bonneville calls this HeartSell.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The question is, "please suggest a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of God."

 

First don't you think it would help to define what God is?  Othrrwise how would anyone know when they saw him/her/it?

The person I usually refer to as God is our Father in heaven, and logically we all must have a Father otherwise we would not exist.  Or at least that is logical common sense in my mind.  Is that "scientific" enough for y'all?

[Sanpitch]

39 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

The problem with Alma 32 is that it is a sales method that works on pretty much everything.  Assume the conclusion you want (faith).  Then try out the religion or product.  Have an emotional experience.  Then the handlers (missionaries or advertising execs) guide or manipulate you to think that the emotional response is related to what you were supposedly "testing."  And voila, a conversion!  Bonneville calls this HeartSell.

In other words, a lot of words that mean nothing.  Sorry mfbukowski  but it also works with Muslims, Catholics, JW.  Even my limited intelligent mind can see that.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How is our church falsifiable? Falsifiability is the ability of something to be proven false. Just ask any apologist, that will never happen no matter what. 

and that makes it non-falsifiable. 

It is not a scientific method. It might work for you, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Please see 2:15 to 3:30.

Here is another option. If the church collapses and all its followers leave that would make for a dozen or so false prophecies. Demonstrably false.

Also, the scientific method does not work for everyone.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here is another option. If the church collapses and all its followers leave that would make for a dozen or so false prophecies. Demonstrably false.

Also, the scientific method does not work for everyone.

Prophesy can always be reinterpreted after the fact. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Here is another option. If the church collapses and all its followers leave that would make for a dozen or so false prophecies. Demonstrably false.

Also, the scientific method does not work for everyone.

3 problems. 

1. That is not a testable prediction we can make today.

2. If everyone stops believing in the LDS church, it will not be because of a scientific prediction. 

3. If the church collapses to 500 members (like the Strang church), their members will do some good  mental gymnastics to explain the collapse. 

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

The problem with Alma 32 is that it is a sales method that works on pretty much everything.  Assume the conclusion you want (faith).  Then try out the religion or product.  Have an emotional experience.  Then the handlers (missionaries or advertising execs) guide or manipulate you to think that the emotional response is related to what you were supposedly "testing."  And voila, a conversion!  Bonneville calls this HeartSell.

We're talking about getting some contact with another person, though.  Not just having any ole kind of emotional experience.  Not just coming up with faith that he exists all on our own.

True, the contact/communication we get from this person is usually,  more often than not, through a form of ESP (extra sensory perception), with this person not appearing to us in person, but still we are talking about an experience involving someone else sharing his thoughts with us while we are sure that he is some other person, other than us.

I think some people just don't believe in ESP, most likely because they have never experienced it with some other person.  But for those of us who have it is something we have experienced and those who haven't experienced it or deny that they can are just refusing to believe it can happen based on their own lack of experience with it.

So at least try to understand what we're talking about,  even if you refuse to believe it is real.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How is our church falsifiable? Falsifiability is the ability of something to be proven false. Just ask any apologist, that will never happen no matter what. and that makes it non-falsifiable. 

It is not a scientific method. It might work for you, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Please see 2:15 to 3:30. 

Religious experiments might be real, but they are not science. "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

...................................................................................................   

Even though the mere fact of observation and experimentation introduces quantum uncertainty, yet that is finally the method used, whether by Oppie and his buddies at Alamagordo, NM, in setting off the first fission bomb, or a young boy in a family place of prayer in a grove in the forest near Palmyra, NY.  In the former instance (Trinity), the physicists already had theoretical confirmation, but needed the practical demonstration.  It was certainly a falsifiable theory at base.  In the latter case (First Vision), there is both the theoretical basis and practical demonstration, but there is no scientific verifiability or theoretical falsifiability.  The demand that experiments be repeatable under laboratory conditions also does not obtain.  That does not mean that it is not authentic, but only affirms the fact that the results are very personal and non-transferrable, every individual having to reproduce them for himself.  This applies as much to Alma 32, as it does to Moroni 10:4-5.  That may be "worthless" as science (per Dunning), but religion is not science.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How is our church falsifiable? Falsifiability is the ability of something to be proven false. Just ask any apologist, that will never happen no matter what. 

and that makes it non-falsifiable. 

It is not a scientific method. It might work for you, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Please see 2:15 to 3:30. 

Religious experiments might be real, but they are not science. "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

 

 

Read the quotes above on falsifiability and falsify those please.

Quote

Religious experiments might be real, but they are not science. "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

The above is self contradictory.

The statement itself is subject to preconceived notions.  That is what the articles above also point out. The argument is circular.  His own personal perception is practically worthless by his own admission.

Surely they can do better than this?  No they cannot.  The scientific method itself is non-falsifiable.  It is essentially Alma 32 all over again. Of course it works.  We send space vehicles to Mars using it.  But all scientific theories ARE falsifiable - OBVIOUSLY!

If science was unfalsifiable we would still believe that the sun goes around the earth.

Collective preconceived notions personal biases and perceptual errors are no better than individual errors of the same kind

Edited May 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Quote

Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic of science, Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examined in detail the history of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing a 'paradigm' is difficult, as it requires an individual scientist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox theory.

See above for link. This is precisely what is represented here:

Quote

 

 "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

 

This is an example of "a scientist who holds a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data."

I have said it now three different ways, hoping that someone catches the drift.

So why is this not an infinite regress?  How do I test my paradigm of belief in paradigms against regress?

I don't.  I admit it is a paradigm, looking for a better model.  So far I have found no reason to not accept it.  I invite challenges, but the only other possibility is some justification for the idea that knowledge does not change.  That is quite obviously false- again- or we would still "know" that the sun rotates around earth.

The only way that change is explainable is by paradigm change- OR that the "real world" has actually changed, and that the earth and sun changed positions.  I definitely have personal prejudices against that view.

Edited May 16, 2016 by mfbukowski