Quote

Your misuse of science is often in a form called "scientism."

And this whole post of yours is yet another attempt to depict a person with zero 100% faith beliefs, who notices that you cannot bear the thought of your faith belief being shown up to be entirely subjective with not one scrap of objective evidence to back it up. You put on an air ofwhich comes across clearly, to me, of: 'I am the scientist and therefore I know mor than you do.' But you constantly evade any challenge to your 100% faith belief. The other day you presented your belief in a much clearer way, but you will never admit that it has zero objective evidence, will you?

Quote

Here are two of your statements:

Quote

I think it is important that if a statement is made that something is true, it should be able to be backed up by appropriate and objective evidence.

It is never expected that statements be backed up by evidence unless they are presented as scientific or scientific like statements,

Why is this a misuse of science? I think it is you who is more likely to misuse science by trying to portray your religious beliefs as somehow associated with your work, even though you try to disguise that by saying that you separate the two – religion and science. But you do that by avoiding having a need to present objective evidence for your faith beliefs in your work, I think.

Quote

expressed as the findings of some study. Such statements are relatively rare, since scientists only study a small sliver of phenomena or experiences one might report. You call them

Please specify exactly what you mean by this “them”.

Quote

"statements of fact", and combine them with all other statements. Then, you treat those statements that couldn't be possibly studied in a scientific way with the invalid evidence requirements of scientific studies.

I do not accept that sweeping generalisation unless you can provide specific examples of what you mean.
Also, That is incorrect. I am fully aware, as I wonder if you indeed are, that it is not possible to study any hypothesis suggesting that anything totally lacking in observability can be studied using the scientific method.

Quote

That's scientism.

Find all the definitions of the word and amongst them find one which did not originate from a faith believer attempting to deflect science in order to retain their confirmation bias that there is actually an existing something to study in their beliefs..

Quote

Quote

Children are not allowed, or supposed to be allowed, to read forums like this, but if they do, I think the more of future generations who can distinguish between fact and fiction, and thus are able to really realise the amazing evolved reality and huge potential of our human brains, then the better that will be.

GHMB has specifically required that adult themes only be discussed in the Mature board so that young people be able to read the other GHMB forums--and they do. When they are confronted with your scientistic demans for evidence, and your claims about the "amazing evolved reality and huge potential of our human brains," it is more likely that they go away confused about science rather than swayed by your evangelistic atheism.

What are ‘scientistic demans’? Define ‘scientistic’ when checking out origins of ‘scientism’.
And you think they will not be even more confused by your non-scientific acceptance of a faith belief?

You need to come up with a fact (not 100% fact, but one with a teeny-tiny gap allowed for the possibility of some god one day appearing and being provable) if if you wish your accusations about me to have the strength you think they have. Unfortunately the bottom line is that your emperor has no clothes!

And just another thought: how can you possibly think it is not the best thing for future generations to understand the infinite extent, capabilities and wonder of the physical human brain? They would then understand, one hopes, the history of belief and the aspects of the brain's unlimited imagination which have thought of and then continuously inculcated and reinforced that belief, in spite of total lack of objective evidence for it.

Susan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16-Nov-18 06:47 by Susan Doris.