3 ms·

Science is a tool to explain mechanisms of the natural of world. It can NOT be used to find the truth about objective morality. For example I can point you the

Science is a tool to explain mechanisms of the natural of world. It can NOT be used to find the truth about objective morality. For example I can point you the the hordes of research papers done on the effects of alcohol. The source of cancers, 40-50% of violent crimes are done under the influence of alcohol, predisposition to evils such as gambling, assualts, SA, domestic abuse, drink driving, effects on mental and physical health and much much more. Truly an endless well of evil that stems from this substance. It has been explicitly verified with the scientific method that it carries significant harms that outweigh any so called benifits. Yet I can guarantee almost all people who assert science as the only way to truth and morality, promote alchol consumption despite the very clear studies backed by research on the depravity of alcohol with regards to the individual and society. So as much as science can say something is bad, the people who say science is the only way to truth need to be consistent and onboard its conclusions rather than picking and choosing moral boundaries when convenient. Science is definetly not the only tool for validating reality. Testimony is an integral part of all of our lives for ascertaining truth. We know that the country of Japan exists because we have maps and images of the place and geography teachers have testified that "this is Japan". It you really think about it, most of your entire life for knowing the truth is testimony. How many times do people pull out their microscope and scientific instruments to verify the world around them using the scientific method? We can even take a step further to say that we use testimony of scientists through their research papers to gain truth and understanding of a matter without having to peer review their papers. Essentially we can assign high probability something is the truth with testimonials of individuals. In regards to our ancestors it would be incredible to be dismissive of their experience and testimonies regarding the "supernatural". How is it possible that civilization all across the globe without contact have some sort of ghosts, spirits, demons, Jinns in their world view. Why do we discard their testimony instead on saying what is the probability that civilization without contact all have belief in a super natural entities?

apienx 4y ago
> How is it possible that civilization all across the globe without contact have some sort of ghosts, spirits, demons, Jinns in their world view. This is an argument from incredulity, a common logical fallacy. The consensus (across many scientific disciplines) is that our brains are more "buggy"than we realize. We routinely fall for biases, fallacies, superstitions, mass hysterias/hallucinations and other silly behaviour. We're intellectually sophisticated compared to our ancestors. Yet, many of our contemporaries still "see" ghosts. "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is a very approachable intro to the topic of how this phenomenon came about and why it persists. > How many times do people pull out their microscope and scientific instruments to verify the world around them using the scientific method It's a regular occurrence in schools around me. YMMV > Essentially we can assign high probability something is the truth with testimonials of individuals. This statement is another example of fallacious logic (specifically, argumentum ad populum). The business of truth is not a democracy. > Why do we discard their testimony instead on saying what is the probability that civilization without contact all have belief in a super natural entities? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Octabrain 4y ago
  Just logged in to answer to your comment and say that I found that "The business of truth is not a democracy." quote of yours simply brilliant.

apienx 4y ago

> How is it possible that civilization all across the globe without contact have some sort of ghosts, spirits, demons, Jinns in their world view. This is an argument from incredulity, a common logical fallacy. The consensus (across many scientific disciplines) is that our brains are more "buggy"than we realize. We routinely fall for biases, fallacies, superstitions, mass hysterias/hallucinations and other silly behaviour. We're intellectually sophisticated compared to our ancestors. Yet, many of our contemporaries still "see" ghosts. "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is a very approachable intro to the topic of how this phenomenon came about and why it persists. > How many times do people pull out their microscope and scientific instruments to verify the world around them using the scientific method It's a regular occurrence in schools around me. YMMV > Essentially we can assign high probability something is the truth with testimonials of individuals. This statement is another example of fallacious logic (specifically, argumentum ad populum). The business of truth is not a democracy. > Why do we discard their testimony instead on saying what is the probability that civilization without contact all have belief in a super natural entities? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Octabrain 4y ago
Just logged in to answer to your comment and say that I found that "The business of truth is not a democracy." quote of yours simply brilliant.