Methods of truth finding

I am against methodological naturalism because it teaches us to be satisfied with not permitting the scientific evidence to lead us wherever it is.

Naruralism cannot explain in a reasonable manner the origin of the universe, its fine tuning, has no answer about the origin of life, explains very little about biodiversity, and what it explains, it explains bad, has no explanation about essential questions, like the arise of photosynthesis, sex, conscience, speech, languages, morality. It short : its a complete mess, which only attracts so many blind believers, because they think, they can be their own " god's ", no interference from above.



what we observe in nature, is the scientific evidence. The understanding of nature like micro biological systems and processes is the exercise and exploration of science. What we infere through the observation , specially when it comes to the origin of given phenomenas in nature, is philosophic, and based on individual induction and reasoning. What looks as a compelling explanation to you, can not be compelling to me, and evetually i infere the exact oposit.


http://www.calldrmatt.com/TruthClaims.htm

1.  R = Rationalism:    This method of making claims to truth relies heavily upon the "head." This approach assumes: That which is logical and consistent is true.

2.  E = Empiricism:    This Epistemological avenue uses the "head-logic" of rationalism and adds evidence that can be systematically verified via sensory input. This approach maintains: That which I can prove to my senses is true.

3.  P = Pragmatism: This approach relies upon results, typically time tested results. While the scientific method bases its claims in controlled experiments, pragmatic conclusions are derived via practical life experience. The pragmatist maintains: That which "bears fruit" & "works" is true.

4.  A = Authority:    Appeal to authority is an oft used method to support claims of "knowing," to prove points: What experts say is true — observations of wise men and women establish truth.

     I  =   I shouldn't expect my opinions to be worth much if they aren't substantiated.

5.  R = Revelation:   Whether one believes in the existence of a Higher Power, Creator, or God, the epistemology of Revelation is one that is used in every corner and culture of the world. This method maintains: That which God reveals is True; Revelations from God establish Truth.

Here are five avenues of epistemology, ways of knowing truth, described in detail:

1.  R = Rationalism:    This method of making claims to truth relies heavily upon the "head." This approach assumes: That which is logical and consistent is true.

Logic led the famous philosopher, Descartes, to a compelling conclusion about human existence: Cogito Ergo Sum = "I think, therefore, . . . I am." To the average observer, the question of human existence is apparent and obvious; most human beings don't doubt their existence, they simply accept it. But what if someone said to you: "I don’t think you exist . . . prove it to me."

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf

Positivism and the Presumption of Atheism

Positivists championed a Verification Principle of meaning, according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.

Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.

The statement “In order to be meaningful, an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified / falsified” is itself incapable of being verified or falsified.

The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapse of Logical Positivism during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark not only a revival of interest in Metaphysics but in Philosophy of Religion as well. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen.