Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
* Falsifiable: Your philosophy of science is unfalsifiable. No matter how much I can show you about science and scientists and their perspective, you're going to continue to insist that methodological naturalism necessitates philosophical naturalism.
Not only is this trivially incorrect but it fails to recognise the multiple times I've pointed out that you could easily prove me wrong by showing me that main stream scientific theory that has a supernatural element. That's one way you could falsify what I'm saying. So even if you actually managed to do that and prove me wrong about science, it would prove me right about my viewpoint being falsifiable.
Your viewpoint isn't internally consistent here. You've set up a situation where I'm either right about science, or about my viewpoint being falsifiable, and failed to factor in a method of doing that, that I've given to you myself several times ITT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You should release the stranglehold you have on the idea that you've cornered science, and that you meaningfully have adopted all of these things into your perspectives. You don't actually live this out the way you claim to. This is very clear from the conversation that's happening right now.
* Corrective: You're suffering from an unwillingness to be corrected when wrong. The data is against you, but you're not taking the new data and allowing it to change your perspectives. You're holding to the beliefs you've brought to the table.
The 'data' isn't 'against' me. I've dealt with every single criticism
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
* Externally consistent: You're not consistent with the external world.
Yes I am and have explained why multiple times. I've included and accounted for the scientists that completely reject MN or use a version that includes the supernatural, and those that work with it despite having contradictory personal beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
* Parsimonious: Your inability to explain how there are religious scientists out there can be understood in a much simpler way by changing your assumptions about science. But you refuse to do that, and instead create a much more complicated understanding by retaining unnecessary features.
I can't understand why you keep saying this despite the multiple times that I've dealt with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Yes, but I say it without random capitalization, and I don't presume that these are the only features of a meaningful philosophical perspective.
I see, so how would you falsify your view that god exists? I don't really need any of the other scientific criteria with which to challenge your viewpoint about god because I know you can't even satisfy that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
But it seems that you're doing this. You have multiple people (both theist and atheist) pointing out flaws in your understanding of the nature of science. Yet you continue insisting that you're right. At what point does the information of people trying to correct you indicate to you that you've actually made a mistake? How much data do you need before you change your current viewpoint?
I'm not getting any 'data', what I'm getting is multiple repetitions and variations on the words 'you're wrong'. And this, despite that I've explained not only my viewpoint, but the logic behind it to show how it's internally and externally consistent. I've explained why the scientific criteria are needed, I've explained why PN through MN is used and what implications that has the information discovered using it, and all I've had in return is 'no, you're wrong, you don't understand it'. That's not good enough.
So, what do I need to accept that I'm wrong? Much better than what I've had... Not one person, yourself included has satisfactorily explained why not a single main stream scientific theory has a supernatural element, or why the scientific criteria exist when they can't be applied to the supernatural. If you could, as one example, explain why a theory needs to be falsifiable to be taken seriously as 'scientific', if falsifiable is a concept that can't be applied to anything supernatural?