We are talking past each other. Knowledge does not mean something is true. I can have knowledge of how Buddhism is said to work, without believing it. I am not arguing for doubt in Science, I am in fact not arguing anything anymore here - my initial point was that it was not evidence-based, which you have seem to have ignored after we sorted out your confusion on the meaning of terms. Functionally, Science is a pragmatic attempt to create models to explain observed phenomena naturalistically - that is about it.I mostly agree with this. But again, you seem to be caught up on the fact that we cannot have 100% certainty and that is somehow giving excessive doubt to knowledge.
You can disagree if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that that is the position of Aerodynamics currently. This is not really about absolute certainty, though we are fairly confident we are missing something here. Our current explanation is not just incomplete, but probably wrong in substantial respects - just like Physics in general, where our two major models are in competition with one another.I disagree that our knowledge of how flight works is "substantially wrong". I have said here many times that science does not talk about absolute certainty.
It is not just a linear progression. Abandoned theories have been taken up again - most notably of course, Atomism. Have you heard of Kuhnian paradigms? Science builds thickets of hypotheses around certain ideas that reinforce each other, but now and then we need to set them aside - and even then, we have no reason to think we should have. I don't know why you keep mentioning Evolution, which is largely a structure of Petitio Principii, in that we find fossils and then explain them by Evolution. I never mentioned it, as it is a poor example in that it is very difficult to falsify. Again, to go from Scientifically Sound to True (which is what I assume you mean by fact here) is a leap of faith.Yes and it was more science that discovered these wrong. One piece of data does not make a theory. Evolution is supported by many different areas of science and has never been falsified to a point that it needs to be thrown out. There is so much evidence for evolution that we consider it a fact.
Well, I never thought our standards were compatible, as you recall. So, I don't know what you would have me say here.You think it is good evidence for god. I disagree
Not really. You would still see it as more likely I had a dog named Fred if I had a waterbowl with the name, say. Or it would be stronger evidence if I was walking the dog at that moment. No, you are talking about the position or level of the standard that you would accept before you accept the belief as a justified one. If I talk to an absolute Idealist, our standards of what constitutes evidence would never be compatible, no matter what topic we are talking about. Standard in your example, means more 'level of evidence' you'd accept, like the classes of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine, than anything else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. You are not showing me what you would consider good evidence, if you reject empiric and observable data that can be coupled to religious experience, in this case.Everyone has a different standard of evidence for belief in anything. We differ our standards of evidence based on what we are talking about as well. You say that you have a dog named Fred, I will believe you without much more evidence, you say a god exists I will require a higher standard of evidence for that. So the standard changes based on the topic.
Upvote
0