Do you continue to accept the experiment as evidence that lemons cure cancer?
No, I don’t, and here’s why: in the context of clinical trials, there are established agreements about right and wrong methodology.
But if I correct those flaws in the methodology, I stop getting results that indicate that any of these things cure cancer.
What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don’t see any objective evidence that your “methodology” is better than a methodology that allows for God.
However, if you’re trying to mean that your “correct” methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...
yes, I do.
yes, that’s what you’re saying. OK. That’s largely what I was wondering—in your mind, there’s no possible way to reconcile religion and rationality. Because the only evidence for God was found using a bad methodology, namely, personal experience.
What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don’t see any objective evidence that your “methodology” is better than a methodology that allows for God.
However, if you’re trying to mean that your “correct” methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...
If you want to raise specific points of evidence for god, I can explain how the analogy relates, unless you have better evidence which I haven’t heard before.
yes, that’s what you’re saying. OK. That’s largely what I was wondering—in your mind, there’s no possible way to reconcile religion and rationality. Because the only evidence for God was found using a bad methodology, namely, personal experience.
“Personal experience” as a general term does not describe a set of methodologies which are universally bad. In my experience, the set of methodologies which have been used to produce evidence for god are all bad, but it’s not because they’re personal experiences. Besides which, not all proposed evidence for god comes in the form of personal experience. I didn’t spend years studying religion just so I could brush it all away by shoving it all into a single category I could dismiss out of hand, or so that I could argue persuasively that it wasn’t true.
Does the available evidence support the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? It either does or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, then the conclusion probably isn’t true. Does the available evidence support invisible gravity elves? A link between HIV and AIDS? In each of these cases, the answer is simply yes or no.
Sometimes we make mistakes in our judgment of evidence. We don’t expect any human to be perfect at it. We have disagreements here about factual matters, and we acknowledge that this occurs because some or all of us are making mistakes as fallible human beings. But most of us agree on the matter of religion because we think the evidence is clear-cut enough to lead us to the same conclusion.
most of us agree on the matter of religion because we think the evidence is clear-cut enough to lead us to the same conclusion.
Right, OK.
But one thing:
In each of these cases, the answer is simply yes or no.
Science is not nearly so black-and-white. If it were simply a matter of running an experiment with “good methodology,” it would be easy. But I know how academia works. It’s messy.
For instance, does the available evidence support the conclusion that this new thing causes cancer? Yes or no, please. Because the scientists don’t agree, and it’s not a simple matter of figuring out which side is being irrational.
For instance, does the available evidence support the conclusion that this new thing causes cancer? Yes or no, please.
Which new thing?
As I said, humans are fallible, we have disagreements about factual matters. If we were all perfect judges of evidence, then all scientists with access to the same information would agree on how likely it is that some thing causes cancer. Sometimes making judgments of evidence is hard, sometimes it’s easier. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right answer in each case.
Right. It’s not that there isn’t always a yes or no answer, it’s just that it’s sometimes difficult for us to work out what the correct judgment is.
It’s possible that religion is such a case, but most of us here agree that the state of the evidence there is easier to judge than, for instance, the latest carcinogen suspect.
No, I don’t, and here’s why: in the context of clinical trials, there are established agreements about right and wrong methodology.
What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don’t see any objective evidence that your “methodology” is better than a methodology that allows for God.
However, if you’re trying to mean that your “correct” methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...
yes, that’s what you’re saying. OK. That’s largely what I was wondering—in your mind, there’s no possible way to reconcile religion and rationality. Because the only evidence for God was found using a bad methodology, namely, personal experience.
If you want to raise specific points of evidence for god, I can explain how the analogy relates, unless you have better evidence which I haven’t heard before.
“Personal experience” as a general term does not describe a set of methodologies which are universally bad. In my experience, the set of methodologies which have been used to produce evidence for god are all bad, but it’s not because they’re personal experiences. Besides which, not all proposed evidence for god comes in the form of personal experience. I didn’t spend years studying religion just so I could brush it all away by shoving it all into a single category I could dismiss out of hand, or so that I could argue persuasively that it wasn’t true.
I think it’s a mistake of rationality to try to reconcile religion and rationality, in the way that it seems to me that you’re doing, because in general you don’t want to try to reconcile rationality with any specific conclusion. You just follow the evidence to find what conclusion it supports.
Does the available evidence support the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? It either does or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, then the conclusion probably isn’t true. Does the available evidence support invisible gravity elves? A link between HIV and AIDS? In each of these cases, the answer is simply yes or no.
Sometimes we make mistakes in our judgment of evidence. We don’t expect any human to be perfect at it. We have disagreements here about factual matters, and we acknowledge that this occurs because some or all of us are making mistakes as fallible human beings. But most of us agree on the matter of religion because we think the evidence is clear-cut enough to lead us to the same conclusion.
Right, OK.
But one thing:
Science is not nearly so black-and-white. If it were simply a matter of running an experiment with “good methodology,” it would be easy. But I know how academia works. It’s messy.
For instance, does the available evidence support the conclusion that this new thing causes cancer? Yes or no, please. Because the scientists don’t agree, and it’s not a simple matter of figuring out which side is being irrational.
Which new thing?
As I said, humans are fallible, we have disagreements about factual matters. If we were all perfect judges of evidence, then all scientists with access to the same information would agree on how likely it is that some thing causes cancer. Sometimes making judgments of evidence is hard, sometimes it’s easier. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right answer in each case.
Any one of many things whose safety is disputed. The point is that it’s not so simple as right and wrong in science
That’s what I mean. Even with the same evidence available, scientists don’t all come to a the same conclusion.
And so I think that while in the case of the age of the earth it clearly does, but in many cases we just can’t tell.
Right. It’s not that there isn’t always a yes or no answer, it’s just that it’s sometimes difficult for us to work out what the correct judgment is.
It’s possible that religion is such a case, but most of us here agree that the state of the evidence there is easier to judge than, for instance, the latest carcinogen suspect.