Explain the Meta-scientific Method

[Delphiki]

This is a question more geared toward Greg1234, but I'm posting it publicly so I can more than one explanation (and possibly a Greg-translator just in case).

Since you deem the physical sciences as erroneous as they only consider the physical, observable, and tangible evidences, without any consideration for the metaphysical -- What is the process for identifying the metaphysical? Is there a method that is applied to test a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion or is it a method completely alien to the standard scientific method.

All you've (Greg1234) done to iterate your stance on creation is make elaborately worded arguments from personal incredulity. "Intelligent design is evident because... well just look at how amazing we are!" Is that a part of the metaphysical/meta-scientific method?

I know that when I ask for evidence of your claims, you proudly refuse to provide any since, as you've explained, I only accept physical evidence. The metaphysical science(s), as you've also explained, aren't implemented with physical evidence. So how do you determine whether something is "metaphysically real" or just plain imaginary? Is there a method for this or is it simply "whatever the bible says"?

I understand the scientific method. I even understand the circular reasoning method many people use to solidify their faith in the bible (although the "why" still escapes me). Frankly, I don't see a difference between the circular biblical reasoning and whatever method you are using to find if something is metaphysically valid.

tl;dr: What is the meta-scientific method? How would one repeat the same method to test for your results?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It’s useful to repeat the definition (Richard Feynman's definition anyway) of the scientific method:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It‘s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong.


The majority of commonly accepted so-called "scientific" beliefs and theories do not meet this criteria.

​

 

[Delphiki]

1 - You couldn't be more wrong.
2 - That's not the topic or what I'm asking.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you deem the physical sciences as erroneous as they only consider the physical, observable, and tangible evidences, without any consideration for the metaphysical -- What is the process for identifying the metaphysical? Is there a method that is applied to test a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion or is it a method completely alien to the standard scientific method.

It would require a direct act from God to interpret the circumstances.

Notice here ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... that Elisha prayed for God to intervene and open the eyes of the man that was with him.

God tailors His understanding of Him on an individual level; that is, He works on us in ways that we understand, but someone else may not.

Remember Naaman? He contracted leprosy, and went to Elisha to be healed.

But what happens? Elisha tells him to go dip in the Jordan seven times, and notice Naaman's angry reply:

2 Kings 5:11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

Naaman, just like you guys, was expecting some pyrotechnic display of divine presence -- and it didn't happen.

(I hope you read the rest of the story: Naaman acquiesces, and is rewarded for it.)

The bottom line, is that you guys expect -- yea, you demand -- that God reveal Himself to you in ways that even kings weren't granted, or else you threaten to boycott faith in Him.

And when I see how some of you act when God doesn't perform to your standards, I'm awed at His foresight.

If you hang on to your user title, and take it to the grave with you, you'll end up in Hell.

Please don't --

 

[Delphiki]

Well that's not it either.

I'm not asking for proof of the metaphysical. I'm asking what method is used to determine something is metaphysically real and not just imaginary or fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that's not it either.

I'm not asking for proof of the metaphysical. I'm asking what method is used to determine something is metaphysically real and not just imaginary or fiction.

752

 

[Delphiki]

So, according to AV, my assumptions are correct. It's the same circular reasoning. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, according to AV, my assumptions are correct. It's the same circular reasoning. Thanks.

Employ my Boolean standards, Delphiki, and answer these simple questions:

1. Are Leprechauns real?
2. Are angels real?
3. Are satyrs real?
4. Is the Loch Ness Monster real?

Now employ pure science and answer the same questions:

1. Are Leprechauns real?
2. Are angels real?
3. Are satyrs real?
4. Is the Loch Ness Monster real?

If any of the above two standards allowed you to answer 'yes', then I submit that answers your OP.

 

[Delphiki]

Yeah, I get the "method": "Does the bible say so?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I get the "method": "Does the bible say so?"

Yes -- we walk by faith, not by sight.

There's your method you're looking for: faith.

 

[variant]

1 - You couldn't be more wrong.
2 - That's not the topic or what I'm asking.

Arrogances replies to so many threads by never being on topic.

The answer to your question is that religion edits via a meta-evolutionary model, as in over the years, religious ideas that are the most successful within their societies (ie at making their societies prosper) will come to dominate thought.

Religion will change in both it's interpretation and in it's scriptures over time just as you saw the various middle eastern religions give way to polytheistic Judaism, and that gave way to monotheistic Yahweh Judaism give way to Messianic Judaism gave way to early Christianity which gave way to Catholicism which split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which Roman Catholicism split via the reformation giving us the various forms of protestantism, and Mormonism and which also branched off of the Judeo-Christian model.

Christianity today looks almost nothing like the original polytheistic Judaism of the old testament and has changed during the inspiration of literally dozens of new scriptures since that time and the changing of societies/and theology have shaped the religion into what it is today.

The blind obedience people like AV have to the end point of this process is what the Bible is meant to engender. Although Christianities survivability as an idea in the midst of things like the scientific revolution are what tests them as metaphysical ideals, because only what is timeless will ever survive such a thing.

 

[Delphiki]

It's disappointing, though, because for some crazy reason I was hoping to get an answer that wasn't basically "Look it up in the bible."

 

[AV1611VET]

The blind obedience people like AV have to the end point of this process is what the Bible is meant to engender.

Thank you for ridiculing my answer.

He hasn't even agreed or disagreed with my last response yet, and here you are already giving an opinion you weren't even asked for.

This is why you Internet scientists are nothing but wolves in sheeps' clothing.

You ask innocent questions, then vent your hate at us and our answers; and that, even before the OP replies to them.

Most of you guys are mean-spirited, rude and hateful -- in my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's disappointing, though, because for some crazy reason I was hoping to get an answer that wasn't basically "Look it up in the bible."

Ya -- talk to variant.

But I'll tell you one thing, I have a right to believe what I believe; and no amount of ridicule and hate-mongering is going to take that away.

 

[variant]

Thank you for ridiculing my answer.

He hasn't even agreed or disagreed with my last response yet, and here you are already giving an opinion you weren't even asked for.

This is why you Internet scientists are nothing but wolves in sheeps' clothing.

You ask innocent questions, then vent your hate at us and our answers; and that, even before the OP replies to them.

Most of you guys are mean-spirited, rude and hateful -- in my opinion.

Hate? You have unshakable faith because evidence has no effect on you.

It can't be ridicule when you espouse it directly now can it?

How should I take you more seriously? By pretending otherwise?

If it is respect you want, act in such a way as to engender it.

 

[Delphiki]

Ya -- talk to variant -- I'm done here casting my pearls before swine.

But I'll tell you one thing, I have a right to believe what I believe; and no amount of ridicule and hate-mongering is going to take that away.

It was an honest question, actually. I figured if your beliefs were justified by an impenetrable circle of reasoning, then maybe this "meta-science" that Greg believes in might actually be different in some way.

I understand that a simple "why" can't penetrate blind faith. I just want to see if belief in metaphysical science was the same thing. My hypothesis was that it is the same thing, and I was hoping to be proven wrong... But, alas, I wasn't... at least thus far. Greg has still yet to post.

No need to throw a fit because the reason for your own faith doesn't make sense to you either.

 

[Nostromo]

Ya -- talk to variant.

But I'll tell you one thing, I have a right to believe what I believe; and no amount of ridicule and hate-mongering is going to take that away.

Yeah, that's pretty much the point he's making. You're so taken in by what is essentially a method of mind control that you don't want to be without it.

 

[Michael]

This is a question more geared toward Greg1234, but I'm posting it publicly so I can more than one explanation (and possibly a Greg-translator just in case).

Since you deem the physical sciences as erroneous as they only consider the physical, observable, and tangible evidences, without any consideration for the metaphysical -- What is the process for identifying the metaphysical? Is there a method that is applied to test a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion or is it a method completely alien to the standard scientific method.

All you've (Greg1234) done to iterate your stance on creation is make elaborately worded arguments from personal incredulity. "Intelligent design is evident because... well just look at how amazing we are!" Is that a part of the metaphysical/meta-scientific method?

I know that when I ask for evidence of your claims, you proudly refuse to provide any since, as you've explained, I only accept physical evidence. The metaphysical science(s), as you've also explained, aren't implemented with physical evidence. So how do you determine whether something is "metaphysically real" or just plain imaginary? Is there a method for this or is it simply "whatever the bible says"?

I understand the scientific method. I even understand the circular reasoning method many people use to solidify their faith in the bible (although the "why" still escapes me). Frankly, I don't see a difference between the circular biblical reasoning and whatever method you are using to find if something is metaphysically valid.

tl;dr: What is the meta-scientific method? How would one repeat the same method to test for your results?

Great questions by the way. I'm looking forward to Greg's responses. I tend to pick on cosmologists for just the opposite behavior. I tend to complain about them being *too* fixated upon the "metaphysical" and for not paying enough attention to pure empirical physics.

 

[Ar Cosc]

AV and Greg, in your opinion, is blind faith in the Quran just as justified and worthy as blind faith in the bible? If not, why not?

 

[Greg1234]

This is a question more geared toward Greg1234, but I'm posting it publicly so I can more than one explanation (and possibly a Greg-translator just in case).

Since you deem the physical sciences as erroneous as they only consider the physical, observable, and tangible evidences,

Only observable, physical and tangible causes and effects. The needle on a compass moving is evidence for a magnetic field. To learn how a needle on a compass is evidence for a magnetic field, you would need to study the properties of a magnetic field, the components within a magnet and how they act in relation to it. In no circumstance is it required to make magnetic fields visible. Unless of course we are dealing with visible science, which teaches that magnetic fields were used to explain things people didn't understand. Where every time you discover an antibiotic, it is because we did not believe in magnetic fields, the very texts you are to learn the properties of magnetic fields acting in relation to the compass are deemed as "fairy tales", and every discovery on magnetic fields is merely a gap in visible science. A very simple property is being given however, that one is intelligence. Intelligence acting in relation to the design of man as outlined in texts. If you cannot even overcome that, what makes you think that you are ready for anything else? Darwinian evolution is not seen as valid. No "meta-scientific" method is required.

The bias created towards magnetic fields is what needs to be overcome. Then you will see what is in front your face. It's not about presenting evidence. This has already been given.

without any consideration for the metaphysical -- What is the process for identifying the metaphysical? Is there a method that is applied to test a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion or is it a method completely alien to the standard scientific method.

You don't seem to be getting it. Anything involving God is seen as a future purely naturalistic process. The test within metaphysics must include properties of God at some point, which automatically invalidates it within physical science. When you use the term science, first realize that you are talking about physical science or that science is only a branch of science. Pure science already acknowledges metaphysics.

All you've (Greg1234) done to iterate your stance on creation is make elaborately worded arguments from personal incredulity. "Intelligent design is evident because... well just look at how amazing we are!" Is that a part of the metaphysical/meta-scientific method?

Then ask an archeologist why he thinks that the Great Pyramid is intelligently designed.

I know that when I ask for evidence of your claims, you proudly refuse to provide any since, as you've explained, I only accept physical evidence. The metaphysical science(s), as you've also explained, aren't implemented with physical evidence. So how do you determine whether something is "metaphysically real" or just plain imaginary? Is there a method for this or is it simply "whatever the bible says"?

Again you need to rephrase your question. Your question should read, "how do we determine that something does not conform to promissory materialism?"

I understand the scientific method. I even understand the circular reasoning method many people use to solidify their faith in the bible (although the "why" still escapes me). Frankly, I don't see a difference between the circular biblical reasoning and whatever method you are using to find if something is metaphysically valid.

And the term "magnetic field" to a "compass". Magnetic fields are true because texts on magnetic fields say so.

Of course this is not true because I have not yet relegated magnetic fields to a future visible process. Now that I have, show me evidence for magnetic fields which does not include, point to, insinuate or imply magnetic fields.

tl;dr: What is the meta-scientific method? How would one repeat the same method to test for your results?

You have the property of intelligence don't you? And you also have man. Test purely naturalistic unintelligent processes and intellgence and see which one is observably and repeatedly capable of creating the level of complexity found in man. Start there.