A Proud Liberal wrote:
Simply put—I claim exactly the same thing in both posts.
Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:
empirical (adj) derived solely from experience; Philosophy derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic
Thats very odd as every dictionary I read has a definition like this:
# Originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
But if thats the definition you want to use, thats ok. But I dont that thats what most people think when they hear empirical. So you may want to always clarify that when you use the word.
I'm very confused by this statement, just what were the two subjects? I believed were talking about the existence of God. One subject only.
The statement my qute was from was regarding the definition of atheist, and how not believe cant be a belief system because it doesnt claim anything.
My attacking the belief of others is separate
from my atheism. Attacking the beliefs of others is not an inherent property of atheism.
Again to put it plainly—bullshit. It may not be inherent property of atheism BUT it is an inherent property of the atheism you practice. You would not attack theistic beliefs without your atheism.
I wouldnt be so sure. Attacking someone else's ideas doesnt necessairly mean that you even disagree. One can always play devils advocate.
However, since im an atheist i obviously dont find most argument for god persuasive, but without arguing how can I ever find one that is? (and vice verse for theists)
Is it your claim that the scientific method provides no means to come to a conclusion? A never ending set of experiments? In the real world results on based on conclusions not an ambiguous someday. Your employers must have infinitely deep pockets if you are allowed to continue experiments with no end in sight.
Hmm.. this is hard to answer because i dont fully understand what you are talking about. However, most experiments lead to more experiments.
For example, I did research on the chemistry of human sweat. I was trying to see if the chemistry of male sweat had an effect on human individual distance. I had 2 hypotheses. My null was "The difference in human individual distance is no greater than do to chance alone" and my alternate was "Sweat significantly affect human individual distance in males(or females)".
So after all was said and done, there was a significant statistical result and I rejected my null for females. which allowed me to accept my alternate for females. However, all I had shown is that the difference is significant. I would have to do another test to show what specifically caused it. And that may even lead to another test, and another.
As for my males, I 'failed to reject my null' because no statistical difference was found. That could lead to an experiment of why if works on females and not males.
But if you look back, you will see that everything centered around me trying to show my results are not even valid.
But, as its often said, science provides more questions than it does answers.
But id still like you to address the :
Scientists routinely stop at the observation step, when the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Publishing results is NOT really part of the scientific method.
Both those statements.