We Don't Know versus The Burden of Proof

@fmf said
But there's nothing objective about what you just so happen to feel is the "best possible answer".

Thank you for your opinion.

@kellyjay said
Thank you for your opinion.

You are running away from the thread topic.

@fmf said
You are running away from the thread topic.

Why because I acknowledge you have an opinion?

@fmf said
But there's nothing objective about what you just so happen to feel is the "best possible answer".

You do realize I said, competing hypothesis correct? Not, we can know the
objective truth?

@kellyjay said
Why because I acknowledge you have an opinion?

No. Running away because you are hiding behind strawmen.

@kellyjay said
You do realize I said, competing hypothesis correct? Not, we can know the
objective truth?

Gosh. Aren't you reading my posts?

@kellyjay said
You do realize I said, competing hypothesis correct? Not, we can know the
objective truth?

What is the significance, in your mind, of your preferred theological narrative ~ that gives you what you think is "the most unreasonable explanation" of the universe ~ for all of mankind? Do your musings have some special status?

-Removed-

Noted your opinion.

@fmf said
What is the significance, in your mind, of your preferred theological narrative ~ that gives you what you think is "the most unreasonable explanation" of the universe ~ for all of mankind? Do your musings have some special status?

If all you do is question everyone else's opinion, why bother, if you cannot look at
the universe as it is and see what is before you, who cares what you think?

@fmf said
But there's nothing objective about what you just so happen to feel is the "best possible answer".

One of the points you are undermining with your line of reasoning is science itself.
We do science because we believe that the universe is intelligently understandable,
and if all there is to the universe are nothing but subjective opinions there isn't
anything out there we can agree on. Even our minds would be subject to questions,
how do you know what think you know, if you cannot know anything? Striving for
the best possible explanation is science, if you think otherwise, well, how would
you know, its only your opinion.

@kellyjay said
One of the points you are undermining with your line of reasoning is science itself.
We do science because we believe that the universe is intelligently understandable,
and if all there is to the universe are nothing but subjective opinions there isn't
anything out there we can agree on. Even our minds would be subject to questions,
how do you know what think you know, i ...[text shortened]... le explanation is science, if you think otherwise, well, how would
you know, its only your opinion.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand science. True science is not about 'belief' in anything, it's about incrementally understanding the world and universe around us; we may theorize, then the theory is tested and proven or disproven, and thus do we increase our knowledge. Science is not 'striving for the best possible explanation', since there is no 'best possible explanation', for true science there is ultimately only the only explanation.

There is nothing in the least scientific, or logical, or reasonable, about reading a mythology (which consistently contradicts itself) and concluding that 'yes, that must be it', this is the very antithesis of science, and has nothing to do with 'striving for the best possible explanation'. To give a simple example, a snake has never been found that can talk, your particular mythology has it that snakes can talk, therefore if we apply any kind of logic we must conclude that your mythology is not to be believed. Belief is illogical, science is logical, now do you understand?

@indonesia-phil said
I think you fundamentally misunderstand science. True science is not about 'belief' in anything, it's about incrementally understanding the world and universe around us; we may theorize, then the theory is tested and proven or disproven, and thus do we increase our knowledge. Science is not 'striving for the best possible explanation', since there is no 'best possible ...[text shortened]... our mythology is not to be believed. Belief is illogical, science is logical, now do you understand?

Science is about testing and repeatability, and with that, we glean what we believe
either validates or invalidates our hypothesis. Now, if you don't believe you can
know what it is that your testing is showing you, what are you doing and why? If
there isn't a level of belief that what we are doing is going to show us something,
again, what are you doing and why?

If there are competing hypotheses they are all looked at with the same critical eye
and the one that is best is the best possible explanation, at least until some other
one comes along. If there isn't a best possible explanation, exactly how do you
tell the good ones from the bad ones, if we cannot know? If we cannot know then
any explanation will do!

@kellyjay said
If all you do is question everyone else's opinion, why bother, if you cannot look at
the universe as it is and see what is before you, who cares what you think?

Don't run away from the question by asking a gassy, emotional, evasive counter-question about "why bother' and "who cares".

@kellyjay said
If there isn't a best possible explanation, exactly how do you
tell the good ones from the bad ones, if we cannot know? If we cannot know then
any explanation will do!

If we cannot know then any explanation will do!

If you think your "explanation will do" for you, so be it. But why do you think claiming your opinion about what is the "best" one creates a burden on anyone else to try to supercede it [or accept it] when in fact nobody knows the answer and people can only speculate?