Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

As before, it's fundamentally wave-like. It clearly exists before it is observed because it shows interference - that's what the double-slit experiment is about.

For pragmatic purposes, what is real is what has demonstrable effect on the world. Everything else is moot.

That's not really the problem. The mathematical formalism represents the behaviour of what is 'real'. The interpretations or formulations are metaphors for it. There's no reason to suppose we can know the 'true' nature of reality - wasn't it you that brought up Kant's noumena?

The last point is where I was headed with opdrey, he seemed to think in terms of the chemistry being some kind of objective reality.

I disagree that the only things that can be candidates
for underlying reality are those that reliably interact with the world, that’s just a restriction of what can be in the scientific model, which observes effect. You are right that all else is hard to confirm.

But Anything that can be shown to observe the world, demonstrated in a way beyond random chance observation is also candidate for underlying reality. But the demonstration of that can only be anecdotal, since the inability to interact prevents measurable effect, or a physical trail.

There is also the presumption of once interacting, always interacting , rather than normally concealed in another dimension . Which also gives rise to problems of evidence and problems of scientific treatment of anything postulated to be only temporarily observable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The last point is where I was headed with opdrey, he seemed to think in terms of the chemistry being some kind of objective reality.

It is objective reality for all practical purposes. You have to decide what you mean by reality in a given context, or you'll equivocate. At everyday human scales, reality is quite different from at quantum scales, because the former is emergent from the latter. They're different presentations of reality. David Chalmers has an interesting book out on this, 'Reality+' where he argues that virtual reality is real, in its own context.

I disagree that the only things that can be candidates
for underlying reality are those that reliably interact with the world, that’s just a restriction of what can be in the scientific model, which observes effect. You are right that all else is hard to confirm.

That's backwards; science is necessarily restricted to observables, so it explores pragmatic reality. If you want to claim anything else as 'real', you need to justify that - what do you mean by 'real' in that context, and how can you demonstrate it? Otherwise, you can claim that any imaginary item is real, and the meaning of reality itself is lost. For example, Russell's teapot is conceptually real, but not physically, pragmatically real.

But Anything that can be shown to observe the world, demonstrated in a way beyond random chance observation is also candidate for underlying reality.

I can't make sense of that.

But the demonstration of that can only be anecdotal, since the inability to interact prevents measurable effect, or a physical trail.

Anecdotes without evidence are a record of some real event, but the question is what was the nature of that event. If I tell you I levitated last night and it was totally real to me, you'd probably infer that I'd had a vivid dream rather than actually levitating. If I told you I levitated my shopping home from the mall yesterday, you'd infer that I was joking, lying, or using a clumsy metaphor.

IOW you have to interpret them probabilistically to decide whether the event described was conceptual or physical. A conceptual event has a physical basis, i.e. the brain activity that generates & supports it, but it doesn't necessarily describe a physical event.

Sometimes our interpretations of anecdotes are mistaken - but unless the storyteller fesses up, we must discover that by empirical means. Either we find evidence to support the anecdote or we don't find evidence when we would expect to find it. The complication is that most reports of evidence are themselves anecdotal, which is why scientific methodologies have been developed, to increase our confidence in the pragmatic reality of anecdotal claims.

There is also the presumption of once interacting, always interacting , rather than normally concealed in another dimension . Which also gives rise to problems of evidence and problems of scientific treatment of anything postulated to be only temporarily observable.

This is just a form of the 'special pleading' fallacy.

Nothing we have discovered about the world supports the existence of other 'dimensions' concealing things that can interact with our universe on an ad-hoc basis. OTOH we have a huge amount of evidence that people are prone to experiences that happen only in their heads, that people are prone to misinterpret their perceptions, and can become strongly emotionally attached to (often irrational) ideas and beliefs for which there is no evidence and which are often contradictory to each other and to established knowledge.

Given the above, it seems prudent to be sceptical of the pragmatic reality of exotic anecdotal claims for which there is no supporting evidence, and/or where evidence is claimed, but is unverifiable and/or unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific publications.

 

[durangodawood]

The last point is where I was headed with opdrey, he seemed to think in terms of the chemistry being some kind of objective reality....

Is chemistry actually subjective?

I would say no. Nether the scientific models nor the underlaying reality are subjective. They are both objective features of the world that dont live in any particular persons mind.

 

[Opdrey]

The last point is where I was headed with opdrey, he seemed to think in terms of the chemistry being some kind of objective reality.

It is.

I disagree that the only things that can be candidates
for underlying reality are those that reliably interact with the world,

And since you are stuck in physical reality you have zero evidence of anything outside of it.

But Anything that can be shown to observe the world, demonstrated in a way beyond random chance observation is also candidate for underlying reality. But the demonstration of that can only be anecdotal, since the inability to interact prevents measurable effect, or a physical trail.

How do YOU measure non-physical-reality traits?

There is also the presumption of once interacting, always interacting , rather than normally concealed in another dimension . Which also gives rise to problems of evidence and problems of scientific treatment of anything postulated to be only temporarily observable.

You should read up on neutrinos

 

[Mountainmike]

It is.

…actually the phenomena and abstracts of the model of chemistry are assumed to represent something in objective reality. You know them by their interactions, not what they are, but what they are observed to do. The distinction is subtle but important. The model is a model, it is not the underlying reality…


And since you are stuck in physical reality you have zero evidence of anything outside of it.

…. First the word “ reliably interact” . An observer does not necessarily interact. A record of Unique observations can Demonstrate existence Without interaction …


How do YOU measure non-physical-reality traits?

… why do you assume you should be able to measure? Not all is measurable, not all is controllable. The scientific model deals with a subset of phenomena, mainly those things that do repeat or can be made to repeat… the mistake is to believe that is all there is…


You should read up on neutrinos
… I have referred to them on occasions in various contexts…

notes in post.

 

[Opdrey]

notes in post.

First off: it's a relatively easy matter to do "interlinear" comments. Just paste "[/" and "quote]" after a line and then past "[" and "quote]" at the beginning of a line.

But to your points:

1) You seem hung up on the experience of reality being only a proxy for reality. That's fair enough and I can't really argue against it. But it also holds for all your religious beliefs as well. Any critique of the limits of science is doubly so for religious thought.

2) You are still not quite getting the point that if you wish to propose any supernatural event you must admit you have absolutely ZERO evidence for it. We are, by the essence of our existence, limited solely to the physical world.

So, yes, there are experiences which may only give us a guide to reality (like Plato's Cave) but that's the thing...we HAVE that. It is repeatable across all observers regardless of faith.

Religious experience? Not so much.

 

[Mountainmike]

- it depends on your definition of supernatural. It is a word that morphs. Science can only say whether it fits the model or not. The reason why the unexplained happens and the context in which it happens , and whether some evidence can ever fit the model then becomes a debate. Science cannot answer this. It is too limited. If all science has is models for red, blue and green, it cannot declare yellow.
God is not in the model.

- Let me explain what science "is". It documents repeatable phenomena and takes logical extrapolations of them. Mindgame. If blocks of pure granite shaped as mice, always levitated with a resistance to displacement related to mass, there would by now be a formula for it. It would be declared "natural" and "science" that granite does that. Science did not explain it, it incorporates what it normally observes. The model is not fundamental, it is empirical , axiomatic, and codifies observation. At the bottom level it cannot say what is the underlying reality it models. It cannot say what our senses cannot detect, and are not needed for advantage of survival.

- Heart myocardium was found to have appeared progressively on what was a eucharist wafer, and had characteristics that have no known method to fake even in a lab, and pathologists say they are inexplicable.
Another cardiologist just wrote a book on them. He agrees too.

That makes it evidence with or without explanation. The model must be consistent with evidence. The evidence does not have to follow the model.

I can reasonably also say it is Evidence of God.
Why? because that is consistent with catholic dogma, and that idea is found NOWHERE else. That however it appears (the appearance and substance are two different things) the eucharist IS the body and blood as per John 6, and believed by all early christians. It is evidence, but it is of course not Proof. There is no proof of abiogenesis from chemical soup either.
The fact so called eucharistic miracles happened in nature a few times, also makes it "natural" , that is what natural means. That It happens.

Abiogenesis from soup yet has to pass the "natural" test. It does not happen and cannot be made to happen. In fact nobody has a full process for it. Its an idea not a natural reality.

- Let us take a middle ground which does not imply God, only whether consciousness is confined to a body. Existence without interaction.

Consciousness is experience which can only be anecdotal. There is plenty of anecdotal evicence of experience of events that cannot have been known by the experiencer if they were confined only to a functioning brain. It is not testable or measurable, but neither can it be explained away by coincidence. I related the incident that got Greyson interested who established the scientific study of Near Death Experience. An unconscious patient described a meeting elsewhere in a building, including not only the tie he was wearing, but a mark caused by dropping food on it. She cannot have known either that the visitor came, the meeting happened, what tie he wore or the damage. Increasing evidence says the brain and the mind are two different things.

- Not all is amenable to test. Not all things are controllable. As a mindgame, nobody can do a double blind trial on whether parachutes save lives in failing aircraft. The evidence is only anecdotal both ways.It is certainly accepted by all. Or whether twins can sense the death of the other twin as another example. That can never be trialled. But in many instances say some twins have shown they have!

- I also am not as cynical about the value of witness evidence. We have dealt with the prophecy of fatima so I will pick another. So let us take the visions of Zeitoun witnessed by a million across all walks of life, and photographed by some. The images were not created by optical trickery. Firstly because you cannot create an real image in free space. Also They tried turning the power off, so it was not a projection. It was before photoshop or holography.

- I am not as cynical about the efforts of professionals. Two doctors determined to debunk the inedia of the paralysed alexandrina da costa, kept her in hospital under secure gard for 20 days. People entering and leaving were searched. When she had not eaten or drunk, urinated or defecated, they were determined to lock down even more. After 40 days, the medics gave up and decided it was nexplicable by science. People who do not drink ., should lose weight and die. She didnt. Her metabolism was as healthy on day 40 as day 1. Nor was she the last or the first. Marthe Robin and Therese neummann were the same.

- The prophesied stigmata of Katya Rivas was watched by capable witnesses on continuous rolling time stamped film footage. The marks appeared by themselves. Even if you conjecture the wounds were self inflicted ( they were not because of witnesses and live footage) , there is no way they could heal in hours. No plastic surgeon could do it. But They did. And Whilst we are discussing Katya, she could write books live for hours on camera, never pausing, crossing out, and also quoting references word perfect. If you think that is still not extraordinary enough then try explaining how she wrote in languages she did not know. Take polish. And she wrote continously. Not stopping, or pausing or slowing down. Katya was poorly educated Where did that knowledge come from, she cannot have experienced i?
Therese neummann spoke aramaic . She was a peasant with little or no education.

And so on.

There are many examples of things that are not just unexplained, they happen in a theistic context, and science would need rewriting to explain them.

So yes I have evidence.

I also have a library of things that I have either put on the "cannot say either way" pile, many of which I have on the reject pile. Something in the evidence does not stack up.. The ones I relate are the ones which pass a level of scrutiny

First off: it's a relatively easy matter to do "interlinear" comments. Just paste "[/" and "quote]" after a line and then past "[" and "quote]" at the beginning of a line.

But to your points:

1) You seem hung up on the experience of reality being only a proxy for reality. That's fair enough and I can't really argue against it. But it also holds for all your religious beliefs as well. Any critique of the limits of science is doubly so for religious thought.

2) You are still not quite getting the point that if you wish to propose any supernatural event you must admit you have absolutely ZERO evidence for it. We are, by the essence of our existence, limited solely to the physical world.

So, yes, there are experiences which may only give us a guide to reality (like Plato's Cave) but that's the thing...we HAVE that. It is repeatable across all observers regardless of faith.

Religious experience? Not so much.

 

[Hans Blaster]

- Let me explain what science "is".

Oh this should be interesting...

It documents repeatable phenomena and takes logical extrapolations of them. Mindgame. If blocks of pure granite shaped as mice, always levitated with a resistance to displacement related to mass, there would by now be a formula for it. It would be declared "natural" and "science" that granite does that. Science did not explain it, it incorporates what it normally observes. The model is not fundamental, it is empirical , axiomatic, and codifies observation. At the bottom level it cannot say what is the underlying reality it models. It cannot say what our senses cannot detect, and are not needed for advantage of survival.

... nope, I was wrong. It wasn't. I feel like I'm being math-modeler-splained.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

- it depends on your definition of supernatural. It is a word that morphs. Science can only say whether it fits the model or not. The reason why the unexplained happens and the context in which it happens , and whether some evidence can ever fit the model then becomes a debate. Science cannot answer this. It is too limited. If all science has is models for red, blue and green, it cannot declare yellow.
God is not in the model.

Your description of science is mistaken. Science makes explanatory models for observations of the world. If verifiable observations occur that don't fit the models, the models are revised or replaced. Concepts of gods are not in a physical model because they have no observable physical influence. They are, however, in psychological models, along with other conceptual abstractions.

Let me explain what science "is". It documents repeatable phenomena and takes logical extrapolations of them.

Those are two subsidiary components of science. Science involves the systematic acquisition and organisation of knowledge, particularly in terms of explanatory models of the world.

At the bottom level it cannot say what is the underlying reality it models.

The 'underlying reality', should we ever discover it, cannot be described in terms of anything else because it is what everything else is made of; OIW, the underlying reality just is. We could potentially describe how it behaves, but that is the only description we can have of what it is. For example, we currently don't know of anything more fundamental in reality than quantum fields - but that name is metaphorical shorthand for how that fundamental reality behaves.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh this should be interesting...



... nope, I was wrong. It wasn't. I feel like I'm being math-modeler-splained.

Wake up Call.
Science , physics and chemistry IS a math model. (and a process for deriving it!)
It cannot model what does not repeat or that cannot be made to repeat, or that are not a logical extrapolation of it. That is only a subset.
An electron is not a thing. It is a math model of observations of a thing. The model does not EXPLAIN the things it models, it codifies them. Turns out we seem to need several math models of the observations of the thing in that case.

And even then we discover the underlying reality of whatever the thing is is blurred. It is not just our view of it that is blurred. (that is the essence of the bell experiments) The thing sometimes cannot be observed.

Hawking finally concluded, that you could not have a single unique model. ( he caught up in the end) He called this " model dependent reality." He always did have his cart in front of his philosophical horse. He should have called it "reality dependent models" which rather prove that reality itself is the variable thing.

The difference between many of us on this thread, is I accept some observations cannot be modelled. Others decide if they cannot be modelled they do not exist.
A strange philosophy indeed.....

 

[Hans Blaster]

An electron is not a thing. It is a math model of observations of a thing. The model does not EXPLAIN the things it models, it codifies them. Turns out we seem to need several math models of the observations of the thing in that case.

Well that's just wrong. An electron *is* a thing. Whether you *model* it as point charge or as a quantization of the electron field it is still a thing.

 

[SelfSim]

It cannot model what does not repeat or that cannot be made to repeat, or that are not a logical extrapolation of it. That is only a subset.

.. and that is nothing more than a belief.

The model does not EXPLAIN the things it models, it codifies them. Turns out we seem to need several math models of the observations of the thing in that case.

As soon as you describe anything using language (English, math, etc), it becomes a model. There are two kinds of models .. testable and untestable. All untestable models are beliefs .. that's it .. there's nothing more to it than that.

And even then we discover the underlying reality of whatever the thing is is blurred.

Your notion that there is actually something beyond human mind perceptions and its subsequent models, awaiting 'discovery', is nothing more than a pure belief.
(Noted: That you are not alone in holding to this belief, however).

It is not just our view of it that is blurred. (that is the essence of the bell experiments) The thing sometimes cannot be observed.

Try on that this is evidence of all beliefs not being observable. That's what makes 'em beliefs!

Hawking finally concluded, that you could not have a single unique model. ( he caught up in the end) He called this " model dependent reality." He always did have his cart in front of his philosophical horse. He should have called it "reality dependent models" which rather prove that reality itself is the variable thing.

Oh please ... you don't have a clue about what Hawking/Mlodinow were on about with Model Dependent Reality, do you? Stop making up your own distorted stories!

The difference between many of us on this thread, is I accept some observations cannot be modelled. Others decide if they cannot be modelled they do not exist.
A strange philosophy indeed.....

Untestable belief based models and objectively testable models. That's all we only ever work with. Its simple.

 

[Mountainmike]

Untestable belief based models and objectively testable models. That's all we only ever work with. Its simple.

Not all can be , or has been modelled.
Not all has been , or can be tested.
Not all can be repeated , or does repeat naturally.

Not all can be observed. That is the universe we know.
Science can only deal with some of it. The subset with a pattern, or that does repeat or be made to repeat.

The rest is just as real.
It does not preclude existence. It is Just a harder to analyze.

Consciousness is all anecdotal evidence, it is what you experience.
At the core all observation is experiential.

 

[SelfSim]

Not all can be , or has been modelled.
Not all has been , or can be tested.
Not all can be repeated , or does repeat naturally.

The objective truth is; Everything, once perceived then described using language, becomes a model.
Demonstrably, models are dependent on a human mind's perceptions .. there is no objective evidence for the existence of 'things', which you happen to believe must exist, prior to modelling them.

Not all can be observed. That is the universe we know.

'The universe we know', is a model which has been conceived by human minds, following observations. There is abundant objective evidence, (easily found), which supports this. You have to look in order to see it though .. and not just make up stories about it.

The rest is just as real.

What we mean by 'Reality or Existence' can be demonstrably shown as being created, either by way of perceived beliefs, or via the scientific method. 'Objective reality/existence' is the product of the scientific method.
There are no other known ways of giving 'reality' its meaning, other than via these two methods. The terms carry different meanings because of the two dissimilar ways of conferring their respective meanings.

It does not preclude existence.

.. an undemonstrated belief in what 'existence must be', all of that is.

Consciousness is all anecdotal evidence, it is what you experience.

Without human consciousness, all bets about reality and everything, are off!

At the core all observation is experiential.

So are perceptions .. but some perceptions turn out to be objectively demonstrable as being nothing more than beliefs.

The above abundantly evidenced principles which I have asserted above, are at the core of Hawking's Model Dependent Reality, btw.

 

[Opdrey]

God is not in the model.

Special Pleading. You made a claim, please support it. Unfortunately you cannot. Because your definition will be special pleading. Just an ex cathedra claim that God is not in the model.

- Heart myocardium was found to have appeared progressively

You keep saying this. From what I understand this claim you got from a book you paid money for. I can go out and find hundreds of books proving the existence of UFO's and Bigfoot.

I would very much like to see a scientific paper on this analysis. Complete with all the summaries of the data analysis, possible errors, methodologies, etc.

So far all we have is your word that there's a book you read that says this. How deeply does it cover testing methodologies, statistical uncertainties, etc. etc.

As I said a book sold to people (usually for a particular position, ie a religious position) is not the same as a science paper.

I can reasonably also say it is Evidence of God.

That is called the "God of the Gaps". It can't be explained by science (so the author tells you) so you assume it is evidence for God?

What if someone finds out it can be explained by science? God just got that much smaller.

In fact human history is one of God getting smaller and smaller for this very reason.

Why? because that is consistent with catholic dogma

OK, Good point. Excellent point. Were you a Catholic before you read these books? Or did these books make you figure that Catholicism is the ONE TRUE FAITH?

I am going to bet everything on you being a Catholic and finding books that agree with Catholic dogma and all is great.

Do you see my point there?

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m not going to challenge this blow for blow it is pointless.

I will state three things, that are incontestable.

1/ you need to step back and consider what the scientific model IS.
You conflate it with the universe but it is not. You have blinkered vision.

Boyles law is there because Boyle put it there.
Maxwells equations are there because maxwell put them there.

The entireity of science is a set of abstracts and set of axiomatic relations between them , then conformance data of abstracts with observation.

It is man made. The abstracts are man made. The relationships are man made. Yes the phenomena map into noumena , but quite what is actually there nobody knows. We have Only models for the parts that interact reliably with instrumentation, through the narrow filter of observation parameters using limited sensing technology.

( which incidentally is all the REAL ohms law is…a statement of conformance of the universe to the abstract model. For those who have never bothered to study it, it is not an equation ( the so called equation is a definition of resistance) , but a conformance of the constancy of resistance which only holds true under narrow conditions)

God is not there in the model because nobody put Him there, not least because it would presume a constancy of interaction that even people don’t normally have.
But then neither is a model of consciousness in the model that accounts for the data available.

2/ you do love your straw man comparisons as defences to truth.

“ big foot” does not have a set of analyzed tissue sections , from all over the world, and hundreds of learned pathologist and scientific analysis reports, that state properties of the samples that defy explanation.

So called Eucharistic miracles do have such evidence. So the comparison is bad critical thinking.


3/ scientific papers and universities are only one place that truth is considered , they are not the only place, and certainly not the place on which the most critical decisions for people are taken , not least most university departments dont have good enough systems for it.

In the most important place for truth : The forensic reports that send people to death row are not published in scientific journals.
University science is myopic. It limits what it will study. There was a time long ago that university science ridiculed that meteorites were rocks from space, or that illness came from the spreading of “seeds”.

It was somewhile before science gave the "seeds" names like "bacterial spores" and "viruses". Even longer before they could find small ones under an electron microscope . Just as it was a long time before an ancient burial shroud got the name "shroud of turin" , and very much later that, forensics showed it is the shroud of a crucified man, at least as old as the sudarium because of forensic correspondence. The mark is inexplicable other than as an artefact of radiation. Woo woo nonsense like ancient chinese remedies - "moss from the north wall of a churchyard cures" , got a new name called penicillin. Times change and with it, so does scientific prejudice..

What does not change is the prejudice. Universities have a comfort zone, and a defence mechanism to allowing other stuff in that does not conform to the academia world view , aka common sense the "net sum of prejudice" so says einstein..

The almost antibody like approach to things universities don’t “ like” , was what conspired to give a false shroud date and refused to allow the truth in. Academia refused to even publish the evidence that proved it wrong. The “peer review” system refused to allow publication of the papers that made the peers look incompetent. Peers control the narrative. It set back shroud research 20 years. Some have even refused to even test samples because of the origin of samples. How unscientific can you get?

Special Pleading. You made a claim, please support it. Unfortunately you cannot. Because your definition will be special pleading. Just an ex cathedra claim that God is not in the model.


….

You keep saying this. From what I understand this claim you got from a book you paid money for. I can go out and find hundreds of books proving the existence of UFO's and Bigfoot.

 

[durangodawood]

....I accept some observations cannot be modelled.....

For instance?

(Sorry if you elaborated on this already)

 

[Opdrey]

1/ you need to step back and consider what the scientific model IS.
You conflate it with the universe but it is not. You have blinkered vision.

You barely read my posts so you don't fully understand what my background or skill level is. Trust me I am very well acquainted with epistemology, empiricism and science.

God is not there in the model because nobody put Him there, not least because it would presume a constancy of interaction that even people don’t normally have.

It feels like you have taken a philosophy class. So I'm confused why you are not familiar with the concept of "special pleading".

and hundreds of learned pathologist and scientific analysis reports, that state properties of the samples that defy explanation.

So now hundreds of pathologists and scientific analyses have shown that once in a while Host literally becomes flesh?

 

[Mountainmike]

You are not aquainted; you pay lip service only , because if you were acquainted you would not consider what is not in the model as special pleading. It’s simply not in the model. that’s all.

Only if you think that the model is the world, and the model encompasses all, is it special pleading to discuss exclusions! . There is plenty of evidence for things that don’t fit.. The model and process only apply easily to things that do repeat or can be made to repeat.

As for numbers? I am referring to total scientific staff involved. A guess is up 10 labs involved on 6 phenomena , each lab must involve a few scientists across the spectrum of tests. The point I make is there are a lot of scientists involved, add that lot up its 100 plus.
I have no idea how many it might only be 50 , who cares? : but the point I make it is many, not one.

Even if only 10, You can only disregard them with sophistry.

That’s the problem I have with the normal sceptic confirmation bias against. the sheer arrogance!!!!

They will accept little evidence and pure speculation as “fact “ for things they “ like” , like abiogenesis from soup.They dismiss masses of actual evidence for things they do not “like”, without any study and they consider the scientists who have studied the evidence as incompetent or deluded.
There are several cardiology specialists.
Are they idiots too in your biased opinion?
If they told you you needed an urgent bypass would you listen?

I notice the same dismissive attitude with such as Lourdes miracles, and in that case there have been in excess of a hundred doctors , and a dozen medical professors involved on single cases on occasion. It makes no difference to apriori sceptics.

It is fascinating that none have mounted any serious objection or fault to the science of sturp, ( who were accused of bias) Rogers, Adler, fanti etc. Who considers the shroud genuine.

The ones who whose science was shown to be biased wishful thinking were the sceptics like mcrone, gove etc. So the normal accusations of bias are right boot, but wrong foot. You cannot trust apriori sceptics in that case. ! John Jackson was a Christian. Nobody ever faulted a word. Mccrone was an atheist, Adler ripped his science to bits, yet ask any sceptic, they will look up wiki , and quote mcrone or even worse nickell! None quote Adler.

You barely read my posts so you don't fully understand what my background or skill level is. Trust me I am very well acquainted with epistemology, empiricism and science.



It feels like you have taken a philosophy class. So I'm confused why you are not familiar with the concept of "special pleading".



So now hundreds of pathologists and scientific analyses have shown that once in a while Host literally becomes flesh?

 

[Opdrey]

.
As for numbers? I am referring to total scientific staff involved. A guess is up 10 labs involved on 6 phenomena

You don't really know how labs work, do you?

, each lab must involve a few scientists across the spectrum of tests. The point I make is there are a lot of scientists involved, add that lot up its 100 plus.

Kind of playing loose and fast with your estimates.

They will accept little evidence and pure speculation as “fact “ for things they “ like” , like abiogenesis from soup.

You really are just plain wrong. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis, nothing more. And it exists because all life is just regular chemistry. There is literally nothing "mystical" or "supernatural" about living chemistry. It is, at its core, just plain chemistry.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is still being tested. But there isn't really any other legitimate alternative. There's all sorts of supernatural alternatives and they are all 100% religious faith.

I notice the same dismissive attitude with such as Lourdes miracles,

Is there any Catholic-based miracle you don't believe in?

If someone writes a book and sells it will you believe it just because you bought the book?