The Philosophy of Science

[Resha Caner]

...so your claim remains unsubstatiated.

If you're interested in exploring this further, we can start a new thread and invite people to participate. Then they can speak for themselves.

 

[quatona]

If you're interested in exploring this further, we can start a new thread and invite people to participate. Then they can speak for themselves.

I just don´t want to waste my time discussing straw men.

 

[Resha Caner]

I just don´t want to waste my time discussing straw men.

It seems we already have. A better option for saving time might have been to ignore me. But here we are. I created the thread/poll here should you choose to participate.

I think doing it this way will help avoid accusations of cherry-picking and misinterpretation. And, to be honest, I don't care about the outcome. If a legion of unbelievers marches in and declares science the only means of knowing, maybe you'll believe I've had the experience I claim to have had. If a legion of unbelievers insists there are other means of knowing, it's great they agree with my vote on the matter.

 

[muichimotsu]

The thing with science foundationally would be distinct from the methodology that varies depending on the 4 main types (Which I'll admit I wasn't that familiar with in that categorization): formal, natural, social and applied

Science at its core is seeking to have the best understanding of things given our observations and understanding of them in a framework that is open to correction and not purely based on consensus, but consideration that the ideas we present are meant to be provisional in nature

 

[Uber Genius]

I think I'd be comfortable going into battle with my description, but what battles, and what professionals are you talking about?

How do theory, then observation, and confirmation/refutation work?
There are many views.
How do scientific revolutions happen? Individual, in groups, only when so-called "great scientists" die?

Does science represent the real world or do we assume antirealism?

Is there a sociology to scientific knowledge?

These are many of the same assumptions we must ask of religious claims. If someone is a evidentialist they would necessarily engage non-theists from a different perspective than that of someone holding to a reformed epistemology.

Your description is fine for CF. But the OP is highlighting the complete lack of understanding by the non-theists out here and the consequence being poisoning the wells to most knowledge not just the religious knowledge claims they want to artificially exterminate (albeit haplessly) by same.