Are the assumptions of science justified?

[The Pixie]

I think you've put the fine tuning argument in too simplistic a form.

I invited Metacrock to state what the predictions are, but so far nothing.

sorry my friend you are mistaken I told you several predictions. All the studies on the effects of mystical experience are making predictions aboiut those effects an the m scale gives us a way to verify it,that's what i said,

We were talking about fine-tuning - and the quote in your post makes that clear. Are you saying these are predictions from fine tuning?

Okay, whatever. So what are these predictions about mystical experiences? Talk us through how they are necessary consequences of the hypothesis. I am betting you cannot - in part because we have been discussing this for about a week now, and you have already backtracked. But surprise me.

[Metacrock]

I invited Metacrock to state what the predictions are, but so far nothing.

sorry my friend you are mistaken I told you several predictions. All the studies on the effects of mystical experience are making predictions aboiut those effects an the m scale gives us a way to verify it,that's what i said,

We were talking about fine-tuning - and the quote in your post makes that clear. Are you saying these are predictions from fine tuning?[/quote]

Okay, whatever. So what are these predictions about mystical experiences? Talk us through how they are necessary consequences of the hypothesis. I am betting you cannot - in part because we have been discussing this for about a week now, and you have already backtracked. But surprise me.

FT argument redocts lots of things, It predictrs the rarity of life bearing planets,


any quantitative research is predictive because in making quantitative analysis one is testing hypothesis. In doing the ordinal M scale research Hood was predicting that a significant number would validate 'stave's thesis by conforming to his pattern of mystical experience. Everytine they use the M scale in research they are repeating those predictions,

[The Pixie]

FT argument redocts lots of things, It predictrs the rarity of life bearing planets,

It predicts the same thing as the alternatives. This is why I have been talking about bold predictions. To be science, it has to make bold predictions, it has to predict something novel.

any quantitative research is predictive because in making quantitative analysis one is testing hypothesis. In doing the ordinal M scale research Hood was predicting that a significant number would validate 'stave's thesis by conforming to his pattern of mystical experience. Everytine they use the M scale in research they are repeating those predictions,

Okay, so we can explore that. What is Stace's thesis?

[Metacrock]

please read my article this will explain it all.

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/20 ... of-st.html
there is a tendency on the part of a ,lot of people to just assume their biases and so qssert people do x because it is their prejudice that one should do X. Ton of atheists with whom I have argued have just asserted religious experienced are different because they think since they are subjective they have to be different,But we need to test these assumptions,

[met]

FT argument redocts lots of things, It predictrs the rarity of life bearing planets,

It predicts the same thing as the alternatives. This is why I have been talking about bold predictions. To be science, it has to make bold predictions, it has to predict something novel.

Disagree & that's what I was saying above. Sometimes new science just reinterprets old phenomena.....

Eg, the Copernican helio-centric universe merely simplified the model, no? Didn't add any new predictions.....

.... & there is - for a more contemporary eg - a new hypothesis in cosmology that the rate of cosmic expansion IS NOT accelerating after all, as has been the dominant theory for the past few years ...& its strength is NOT that it predicts anything different, but that it doesn't need to assume the existence of "dark energy" like the universal acceleration theory does - which removes with a rather tenuous and difficult concept - so it simplifies things.

But otherwise, it's nothin' new.....