|
|
The question of 'proof' challenging the scientific methods of falsification.In dialogues with many theists who challenge science and the scientific methodology of falsification where proofs do not apply as in math and classic logic is they respond 'Is this proven?' as a problem and weakness in science. How is the best way to confront and describe this type of fallacy?
|
| asked on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2016 08:17:32 AM by Frank | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Rational beliefs and knowledge is established through evidence, not just logical or mathematical proofs. I have only heard theists respond using this argument when the atheist would demand proof about the theists' claims, not realizing the hole they are digging for themselves. To demand proof for something where proof is not possible would be an example of the Nirvana Fallacy - dismissing an argument because it can't match an impossible standard. |
| answered on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2016 08:25:56 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |