“Nations will be in distress and perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves” Luke 21:25
And not that this is needed to make the point, but it’s recent and exemplifies it well:
The Bible also speaks to megacryometeors (Revelation 16:21), not bad yet, but don’t be surprised if they get worse, since they may be a function of more extremes at the tropopause.
If that is the question this talk of science and abiogenesis is a side show. I’d point to the Ressurection, noting that it should probably be a different thread too.
What makes a field scientist’s notebook valid?
We can check his data by making our own observations.
So, what makes the testimony you are pointing to valid?
What if it’s a one time irreproducible event, like a particular avalanche?
Any conclusions can be tested against future avalanches.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question. What makes the testimony you are pointing to valid?
The real answer, in my opinion, is that we must each make our own assessments of that.
That doesn’t really change anything.
My own view is that an observation is neither true nor false. It is just an observation. And an observation is a report of a subjective experience. If we are doubtful of an observation, we can usually repeat it. But a repeat is actually a new observation, so it doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of the original observation. If the new observation is consistent with the old, that adds to the credibility of the old observation. However, credibility is not the same thing as truth.
Because it’s an objective reporting of the facts. The conclusions inferred are open to discussion, but the facts are not.
Not if the testimony of your eyes is to be believed.
How so?
Is the observation of an avalanche subjective? “There was an avalanche.” How subjective is that?
Thanks for that question. I want to know if my reasoning is in error and it’s questions like these that make me have to explain things which helps me and others to see if I’ve missed something in my reasoning.
So as I understand it, in abductive reasoning it starts with certain facts that need to be explained. Then there are several criteria that need to be looked at in examining the competing explanations of those facts, among which are simplicity, and explanatory scope and power.
I haven’t put together a formal argument but to get the idea I listed some facts that need explaining. The question is, what are the possible explanations, and which of the explanations seem to qualify from the criteria to best explain those facts?
So from the list I made from the top of my head I would say that a supernatural cause is definitely in the running considering natural explanations are pretty wanting if not incapable of accounting for those facts.
Like I said though, I haven’t put together a formal abductive argument, but was just trying to provide an example of what such an argument might look like in order to make the point that the facts I listed would be considered scientific facts or evidences for supporting a metaphysical claim in an abductive argument. Does that make sense?
And likewise the objective reporting of nitty-gritty and minute physical details.
What makes reporting objective?
What makes a field notebook objective?
In your eyes, it appears that there is no such thing as objective reporting?
I am asking you.
I guess first I need to know what your understanding of a ‘fact’ is.
I am asking for your understanding of fact, objective, and valid testimony. We may have different understandings, and may disagree, but at least we could put our cards on the table.
For me, a valid testimony is one that can be checked independently of the actual testimony. I doubt you think Joseph Smith’s testimony is valid, right? Could we agree that just writing something down does not make it valid?
Sure. I am talking about ‘normal’ events that would be reported similarly by any number of observers on the scene.