Nomad, I'm reacting to a specific tenor that I've seen in the other thread. Now I could be wrong; it's a huge thread and I might very well be misunderstanding your words. If so I do owe you an apology.

I understand you as saying there that the "default" position when interpreting the Gospels is that they are accurate and truthful accounts of events, and that one is must believe them unless one can present compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is this attitude that I'm calling a mistake against scientific process that erodes your credibility. If I understand your attitude incorrectly, my argument is obviously invalid. If I understand correctly, then, we have a meta-process debate: a debate about how to tell if a process is "scientific".

No. The default position must be one of neutrality, with an acceptance that the truth can be uncovered, and knowable to some degree. If one does not believe in truth, then the quest is in vain, but if we remain open to anything, including the astonishing, then we are able to explore and discover much that previously would seem quite incomprehesible, not to mention incredible.

The difficulty that I have here is the type of scientific methodology that is being employed. Most of the truly important things in life do not reduce to mathematical certitude, but that does not mean we cannot uncover the truth of them to the best of our ability. Wisdom is far different than mere intelligibility or even "sensability". The truth is quite impervious to our beliefs or wishes, but it can be uncovered by us, even if only darkly and without 100% certainty. Personally I do not think 100% certainty in this life is even possible, or even desirable.

I do not mind discussing scientific methodology, but I do reject it as the sole means by which we can come to know a thing. I recognize that this offers a worldview and method of epistemology that is quite different from what most sceptics are used to, but if we can at least explore the means by which we come to know things, and agree that there is more to life than mere senses, then a great deal can be achieved, even if we do not come to a final resolution or universal agreement.

Peace,

Nomad

That's fair.

Entirely agreeable.

All I'm saying is that the scientific method is the only way we can gain scientific knowledge.

That's fair as well.

I'm not feeling well today, so I won't go into details, but your position is clear and reasonable.

Thanks SD,

And I would like to get into this and other discussions again. Right now I am just trting to wrap up the threads I am on until I return from my business trip on Sunday.

Happy hunting.

Nomad

Good, I'll start a debate on Sunday on the "Default view in scientific investigation" in Science & Skepticism, just for you and me!

Have a good trip.