Other people like to call themselves superior because they only believe what they can see for themselves.
Scientific method: They implied that science has rejected mystical phenomena altogether (and due to arrogance no less!) when in reality they’re tested fairly often. Experiments DON’T assert that “there’s nothing beyond our physical reality”; that’s a misunderstanding of what an experiment does. Experiments only confirm that if there is something beyond our physical reality, it has no statistically significant measurable effect on that physical reality, for whatever combination of mystical effect and physical effect were being tested.
I certainly can, that doesn’t make the extrapolation correct. It’s particularly ironic that you’ve chosen to infer these conclusions in a conversation about the rigor of empirical study.
At no point did they characterize either science or scientists, the latter they never even mention. Their only mention of science is:
Some people, like myself, have no problem accepting that we can’t explain everything with science and data and math.
Which not a characterization of the scientific method. The characterization is a non-empirical, unscientific inference based on your own assumptions.
When did they characterize either?
Scientists:
Scientific method: They implied that science has rejected mystical phenomena altogether (and due to arrogance no less!) when in reality they’re tested fairly often. Experiments DON’T assert that “there’s nothing beyond our physical reality”; that’s a misunderstanding of what an experiment does. Experiments only confirm that if there is something beyond our physical reality, it has no statistically significant measurable effect on that physical reality, for whatever combination of mystical effect and physical effect were being tested.
They only say “other people”. They never said “scientists”, that’s your own extrapolation.
Can you not extrapolate from what’s been explicitly typed? It’s a pretty common skill
I certainly can, that doesn’t make the extrapolation correct. It’s particularly ironic that you’ve chosen to infer these conclusions in a conversation about the rigor of empirical study.
At no point did they characterize either science or scientists, the latter they never even mention. Their only mention of science is:
Which not a characterization of the scientific method. The characterization is a non-empirical, unscientific inference based on your own assumptions.
Nuh uh