Do you believe that only things which are scientifically verifiable are true? Why?

Question

Unfortunately that claim cannot be verified scientifically. It is a philosophical claim and not a scientific one. So why do you believe it?

Answer 1

Science is an illusion

Answer 2

You are incorrect. The truth of the scientific point of view CAN be verified -- that's precisely why the scientific revolution occurred. It's not a question of unsubstantiated philosophy, science is factually correct. Here's why:

About 350 years before Christ, Aristotle developed Solipsism, an unverified philosophy. Solipsism maintains that a person's subjective (perceptual) experience is the basis of reality. Whatever a person experiences in their "mind's eye" is considered absolutely real. If a person experiences an auditory or visual hallucination, it is considered to actually exist. Solipsism also maintains that the physical realm is unreal, an artificial construction of the mind that never actually existed. If a tree fell in the woods, a Solipsist would insist that it made no sound, unless there was a human mind to perceive it. Indeed, the woods itself could not actually exist, except within the mind of a human observer. Solipsism explained that two people could perceive the same subjective experience because one "cast a mote" into the eye of the other.

It is important to understand that Solipsism (and Plato's Idealism) totally dominated Western Civilization for nearly two-thousand years. All the ancients after Aristotle were Solipsists, including Christ and all his followers, the founders of the early Church, and the authors of the books of the Bible. It is extremely unfortunate but absolutely true that Solipsism (and Idealism) caused all of Western Civilization, and especially Christianity, to get off to a false start. A great deal of Christian theology depends explicitly on the mistaken assumption that the basis of reality is each believer's subjective (perceptual) experience (and that thinking requires telepathic communication with God). Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

About 1590, Galileo discovered Aristotle's presumed wisdom was deeply flawed. When actually subjected to physical tests, many of Aristotle's opinions were found to be false. By the end of the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton's physics had proved that the physical realm was actually real. Free-thinkers soon realized this implied that a person's subjective experiences were not actually real. The Church did as it has always done when someone contradicted established dogma, it launched an Inquisition against those who dared to imagine that their own living brains naturally created the illusion of reality within their minds and that the physical realm was actually real. Such heretics were called Materialists and countless thousands were cruelly tortured and painfully executed -- the last in Mexico, about 1850.

The invention of the vacuum tube, and the development of the electroencephelograph (EEG) finally proved beyond all possible doubt that the origin of all thoughts, memories, emotions, and perceptions is the neurological structures of a living human brain. Because Newtonian physics had already proved the physical realm is utterly real, and because electronics proved living brains create consciousness, Aristotle's Solipsism and Plato's Idealism (two philosophies) were proved to be utterly false.

Note that both philosophies, upon which Christian theology critically depends, have been proved false by physical experimentation. Science is NOT merely unsubstatiated philosophy, as you seem to assert. Science, unlike philosophy and religion, is always tested against objective (physical) reality to verify both its assumptions and results. This is why scientific findings tend to converge on actual truth. Further proof that this approach is valid is all around you. All the science and technology of the modern era is further tangible proof that the physical realm is actually real. ...and all of it has been invented during the 417 years since Galileo began to question the philosophical "wisdom" upon which all of Christianity is based.

That's why I think science is true and religious superstition is false.

Answer 3

Don't get hung up on the word "true". Things which are scentifically verifiable are things which we take as proven or fact about the universe. Things which we have not proven by scientific experiment are not automatically deemed "untrue", they are simply unproven. Ever heard of simply witholding judgment until all the evidence is in? Things which are not provable - that is things which cannot be proven (by their definition) are not included in knowledge by science since there is nothing we can say about it's factuality, however, keep in mind that we generally don't accept things as being true for which there is no evidence. Clearer now?

Answer 4

I'm a skeptic. That's the way my brain is wired. I only value that knowledge that can be proved to be true and documented. I have never seen a shred of proof for many of the ideas that make up different religions, beliefs, wild ideas, or whatever. I enjoy the study of the history of some of those things in order to gain a better understanding of what makes it important to other people.

Answer 5

I don't immediately dismiss all personal, subjective experiences as "invalid", if that's what you mean.

Humans have come up with different systems for answers different types of questions. Science, and more specifically the scientific method, is the best means of getting reliable answers of an objective nature. And its usefulness has been demonstrated innumerable times. But we have other systems (psychology, religion, philosophy, etc.) to answer other sorts of questions.

Answer 6

Anything that has not been verified by science I am open to.

However, there are degrees of openness.


Ghost and UFO I am skeptical of, but open to real evidence if and when it comes up.

Dragons, unicorns, gods and mermaids defy rational thought and are so unlikely to exist IMHO that they are not worthy of consideration.

Provide evidence of one of these things and I will take it under consideration. the better the evidence the more likely I will accept it as true. - turn up with a unicorn for example and I will gladly change my mind on the existence of unicorns.

Answer 7

Yes and No.
Yes because once a thing has been proved scientifically
you can see and feel it. It becomes certain.

No because there are so many happenings that science can not prove and they happen. Take for example a sick person who has been diagnosed as having a terminal decease and asked to go home and await his/her death but miraculously
lived for so many years thereafter. Can one explain that? No
These are beyond human comprehension.

Answer 8

I believe in what can be scientifically documented, but not solely.

However, I refrain from believing anything truly illogcal or ridiculous unless given proof otherwise.

Answer 9

The Bible says in Hebrews regarding the creation...

"...things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

It has only been in recent history that man has discovered the atom and how that atom is made up. It is hard to imagine that the desk I am resting my arms on right now is made up of more space than solid, and what I am actually feeling against my arm is a force of energy rather than actual substance.

Before they were verified as existing, did that make them non-existent?

toogethr - Good answer.

Answer 10

There are realms and realms of unverifiable things and spirits that science knows nothing about. For this reason, God gave us His Holy Word, the Bible.

It will break your heart to learn but man knows very little about anything.

Answer 11

I believe that they're the most reliable, yes. I tend to follow where reason and logic go. "Truth" is too subjective of a term.