3 ms·
> the concept of e.g. a spirit because it's inherently immeasurable, untestable, and unknowable Do you mean by artifical means or sensing machines or something
by AStonesThrow 2y ago
> the concept of e.g. a spirit because it's inherently immeasurable, untestable, and unknowable
Do you mean by artifical means or sensing machines or something?
Because spirits are a metaphysical but very human concept, and I answer that they can be perceived, discerned, described, and known [perhaps not fully or objectively].
Faith and reason are both in operation for science and religion. There is a complex history of falsified doctrines, miracles, apparitions, and communities for mainstream Christianity, as I am sure all others.
You can't dissect a Eucharistic host or throw it into a Mass Spectrometer and find Jesus molecules, [unless you're Carlo Acutis] but if one billion people can tell the difference, who are we to judge?
It's better known than Prozac, and possibly more effective, what do you think?
- somenameforme 2y agoFalsifiability is exclusively about objectivity and measurability. For instance I think it's fairly safe to say that every single human of working faculties would claim they are conscious. This doesn't mean humans are conscious, because it can't be falsified. Our philosophical zombie, for instance, would say exactly the same no doubt. And no idea if the reference to Prozac was random, but yeah that is a good example. It's effect is not falsifiable at all. It's based on self reporting. And controlled studies, particularly those not carried out by parties with a vested interest in the outcome, shows its effect be scarcely better than placebo. Some might cling onto to that with 'well that does mean it's still better!' yet Prozac has extreme, and rather rapid onset, side effects which makes it basically impossible to not know if you're getting the right thing. This completely ruins double blinds, and could largely explain what little effect it does show.