Sure, however somethings cannot ever happen. Have a probability of zero. So are not possible.
Making them literally "impossible." And I agree! But watch closely:
- Impossibilities aren't really "
anything" at all. I clearly stated, "anything is possible," which pretty much means anything that could possibly exist is possible ("A = A"
or "-A" = "-A").
- There is a clear distinction between a possibility vs. an impossibility. An impossibility is far more determinate, verified, and certain. While
"possibility"
alone is much more ambiguous, as-in, "it might
or might not happen." That nasty "
or" always messes things up for us, don't it?
^ Possibilities by nature always remain held within that indeterminate "stasis" of ambiguity. As impatient human beings, we generally want to further categorize any mere possibility as more likely determinate, one way or the other, but we really can't. Not if we don't have anything more substantive to go on, to make a mere possibility into something more than just mere possibility.
Science is the active pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural world using a systematic process and is evidence based. Science includes observation, measurement of data, analysis of data nd evidence, repetition of verification and testing. Peer review is a necessary part of science. Science uses this process to find out truth which is what corresponds to reality.
Okay. That's fine, but it's full of implicit assumptions that I don't believe you've taken the time to really get into:
1. This is a claim without evidence. Is there scientific evidence for science? No, because that would be circular reasoning. What is the "best method" of determining the claim of science itself? Doesn't that mean science exists without evidence, or is a belief based on blind faith?
2. What "systematic process" is being referred to? Is any systematic process acceptable as long as it produces verifiable results, or is there a singular (universal) prescriptive method being asserted here? If the latter, then that's simply another claim without evidence.
3. When you refer to "observation," don't you really mean "empirical observation?"
4. When you refer to measurement of data, you mean using math, right? Isn't math necessary for measurement?
5. When you refer to "evidence," don't you really mean "empirical evidence?"
6. How much repetition of verification and testing is enough?
7. Re: "Verification." Have you ever heard of "verificationism" in philosophy of science? If you have, then can you tell me generally what year verificationism failed, and why? If you don't care about this question at all, or don't even care to look it up, then why is verification still necessary?
8. Why is peer review "gatekeeping" still necessary
in the age of information? What if peer review
isn't as reliable in the real world as we were
led to believe in class?
9. What is the justification for your assumption of the existence of "truth?"
10. What is your ontological "reality" here, and how can you possibly justify the assumption of it?
^ These are not meant to "get you." They are just very real questions that I don't believe you've ever taken time to seriously consider, and
you are not required to answer any of these. I'd strongly suggest doing yourself a favor, walking away, and not debating any further. Metaphorically speaking, Br'er Rabbit has already punched way too deep into the proverbial tar baby by now.
You are confusing what is 100% certain to be true with what we have good reason to believe is true.
You have no objective standard of truth to work in either case, whether deductively (100%) or inductively.
Science deals with what we have good reason to believe is true.
What do you mean by "good?" Utility? Personal preference?
You never asked for my standards. This is not an easy question. My standards are whatever convinces me something is true and this will be in proportion to the claim.
So you admit that you can change your personal standard on what is both convincing as well as proportion. At whim. You know, like flat-earthers do.
If a claim is mundane like if you told me you ate eggs for breakfast I would believe it to be true based on that.
Not if it's related to say, a murder trial, or a lawsuit involving the poultry industry. Context is everything here. Suddenly, nothing is "mundane" and every little detail matters: "What grocery store? Which farm? Powdered eggs or fresh? Cage free, or regular? What grade?"
If you said that you can walk through solid walls I would not take your word for it. I would need more evidence probably I would need to see it in person. So when a claim is made I need to evaluate the evidence and see if it convinces me.
But by your own statements here, you're stating that you've already "convinced" yourself before any honest or impartial evaluation of the evidence.
What it takes to convince them and those standards will change based on the claim.
Which means that after all is said and done, it's more about ones subjective will (choosing to be convinced) rather than the objective evidence itself. One's subjective will is generally the gatekeeper for evidence; regardless of how real it is or not.
It means that pretty much anyone is capable of doing that, and it's not limited to flat earthers alone.
At least you checked. I will need a definition of what you think supernatural is.
It's very basic: "That which is superior to, surpasses, supercedes, transcends, or goes outside of nature." Many dictionaries flip it against science, but taking it back to the direct compound words is more thorough. Many who profess to be "pro-science" assume that nature is all there is. But that's simply begging the question, which is never rational.
No but I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% confident I am looking at a plane.
That's because you're just taking your own sense perception for granted. How do you know you're not merely dreaming of looking at a plane? How do you know for certain it's not a very elaborate scale model? <-- I assure you, they're surprisingly detailed nowadays. How do you know you're not having a sudden hallucination? Etc. Throw the Problem of Induction on top of all this and you really don't know what you're looking at. Are you even sure you exist? Are we having fun yet?
