SmokinJoe wrote:Yes, so now that we know I'm talking about scientific skepticism under the umbrella of science, do you now get it that a negative claim still falls under the onus of proof?
Now that I know you're not talking about science in general, but a branch of science, yes.
Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.
But at the same time, "paranormal or anomalous phenomena" is pseudoscience:
a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
If the scientific method can't be put to use regarding these claims, then there's no way to PROVE them false, and these ridiculous claims can go on forever.
SmokinJoe wrote:It very much applies. So much so that they often FOCUS their criticism on implausible claims. And out of that skepticism, scientists state that those who claim, for example, that God is a fairy tale, must support their negative claim. The onus of proof is on the claimant to prove it.
If said claimant fails or refuses to support their negative claim, then that is known, in scientific circles, as pseudoskepticism.
I'm talking about negative onus of proof. A claim is a claim. In science, if one make a claim for or against something, the onus of proof is on them.
If i were trying to submit my views into scientific discipline, then I would. I am not making any claims beyond my personal experiences that God exists. I'm not trying to make anyone else believe as I do. I'm not trying to claim God is provable through any scientific means. That is why I believe this subject falls under the realm of philosophy.
So, basically, anybody can make any outrageous claim they want (with no evidence), and just because they aren't involved in the scientific community, they don't get to be labeled "pseudoskeptics". But if a scientist comes along and says their idea is crap, and doesn't have the evidence to prove them wrong, they're the pseudoskeptic?
Something about that line of reasoning just doesn't seem right.
SmokinJoe wrote:In philosophy, this is how this bears out:
We each state our view on God -
SJ knows God exists.
EH knows God does not exist.
Both statements are true to each individual. This is debatable in Philosophy. However, neither of us can take our view on God from a philosophical debate to a scientific one. There are no scientific tools, methodologies or principles that can be used in science to establish the existence/non-existence of God.
I never said I "know God does not exist". I said I know the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. You're the one making the outlandish claim that not only do you KNOW "God" exists, but it's the "Biblical God".
