The real question.

Originally posted by Boris
As apposed to what other type of proof? If something has been scientifically proven, what other proof is left?

Personal experience perhaps?

Yet there is no proof in that, no evidence, I mean, I could have a personal experience where I see fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.., does it make them exist, no.. of course not. Personal experience cannot prove anything.

Originally posted by Boris
Yet there is no proof in that, no evidence

According to what? The scientific method? I thought you were asking for standards of proof other than science.

Many people are critical of science for its inability to include subjective experiences.

I'm glad you are a logical person Boris, but lots of people see logic as a flawed way to look at the universe

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm glad you are a logical person Boris, but lots of people see logic as a flawed way to look at the universe

But anecdotal evidence doesn't = illogical. It's just not empirical.

Anecdotal evidence isn't good because someone could have just made it up.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Anecdotal evidence isn't good because someone could have just made it up.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Scientific evidence isn't good because reality could just be an illusion.

But science doesn't assume what it doesn't have to. So let's be fair and not assume the anecdotal evidence is fabricated.

Originally posted by Ytse
Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Scientific evidence isn't good because reality could just be an illusion.

But science doesn't assume what it doesn't have to. So let's be fair and not assume the anecdotal evidence is fabricated.

The idea that reality is an illusion does not diminish scientific evidence. This is because if something is predictable and adheres to laws, it does not matter if it is an illusion. The outcome will be just as predictable, rather reality is an illusion or not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that reality is an illusion does not diminish scientific evidence. This is because if something is predictable and adheres to laws, it does not matter if it is an illusion. The outcome will be just as predictable, rather reality is an illusion or not.

I don't mean an illusion like a holodeck program or something where you can observe the "rules" and then make predictions based on them. I mean illusory altogether as in, there is nothing to predict in the first place.

Solipsism, if you will.

Since accurate predictions have been made, it's clearly not impossible, illusion or not.

Originally posted by Ytse
Ah, no you didn't. It just seemed as if you were setting it up as a this-or-that kind of thing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Since accurate predictions have been made, it's clearly not impossible, illusion or not.

How on earth can you predict something if it doesn't exist? If all you experience is an illusion then you've observed nothing in the first place. So, what exactly are you predicting?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, yeah. Religion guesses the truth, science searches and works out the truth. Which would you rather believe?

Religion doesn't guess a truth. It posits a truth.

Originally posted by Ytse
Religion doesn't guess a truth. It posits a truth.

Originally posted by Ytse
How on earth can you predict something if it doesn't exist? If all you experience is an illusion then you've observed nothing in the first place. So, what exactly are you predicting?

I will give you an example: We have never seen a planet orbiting a star other then our own. However, because of the motion of the star from side to side lets us that there is something that is pulling the star in a circular fashion.

It all depends on “it doesn't exist” means. If the true nature of reality, is beyond us, and this illusion is governed by rules; then by examining the illusion we are understanding the true nature of reality indirectly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on “it doesn't exist” means. If the true nature of reality, is beyond us, and this illusion is governed by rules; then by examining the illusion we are understanding the true nature of reality indirectly.

I said that when I used the word "illusion" I was talking about something like solipsism:

1) Nothing exists;
2) Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3) Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

Anyway, this was all to defend my analogy that if you can assume someone providing the anecdotal evidence is fabricating it you can just as easily assume external reality is illusory. But we don't because that would defeat the entire purpose of using this evidence in the first place.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It does not posit the truth, there is no logic behind it.

If you don't think religion posits a truth then you either don't know what posit means or you don't know much about religion.

If I'm wrong, please explain rather than just making baseless claims.

Originally posted by Ytse
...Anyway, this was all to defend my analogy that if you can assume someone providing the anecdotal evidence is fabricating it you can just as easily assume external reality is illusory. But we don't because that would defeat the entire purpose of using this evidence in the first place.

I disagree. Science is held to a higher standard then hearsay. Your analogy is incorrect.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. Science is held to a higher standard then hearsay. Your analogy is incorrect.

What does science being held to a higher standard (whatever that means) have to do with my analogy?

Originally posted by Ytse
What does science being held to a higher standard (whatever that means) have to do with my analogy?

Hmmmm You don't get it, sorry. 😄