Can you give some examples? — TheMadFool

Here are some examples of the quantitative: kilograms & meters per second squared. The actual meaningful measurements themselves. If we say F=ma then that is a quantitative statement, but if we categorize that as Newton's 2nd Law, then that is a categorical statement.

Can you give some examples? — TheMadFool

Species of fish, different types of force and even Newton's Laws of Motion are categories. I honestly don't think you know the difference between the two. Infinity is not quantitative, it is not even a number, it is a concept. You can not measure infinity.

Not everything in science is quantifiable, in fact that is why we have the two terms.

I have no interest in defending psychology as a science nor do I care if you do or do not consider it one. I suggest you Google it.

Still not the variable of interest. Understanding that difference is a common exam question in intro stats courses. Everyone always makes the same mistake you are making, but it is categorical.

Psychology is generally considered a science and I have no good reason to disagree with that.

Most is not a quantitative unit of measurement nor is it the variable of interest.

And name a science that does not use statistics.

Where are the nude pictures? Don't promise adult material unless you have nudes.

I think quantitative psychology has yielded results that give us insights into our own mentality. For instance, most religious people are against abortion or education level is associated with atheism, etc. — TheMadFool

Those are qualitative assessments, not quantitative and that would be statistics not psychology.

Science is modeling the reality around us in a systematic fashion.

An attempt to create an approximate model of the reality we find ourselves in that can be used to more precisely explain observations and make reliable prediction. The aim is to use refined and proven methods for doings so. These methods can vary across different braches of science but some have proven themselves reliable so there are many which overlap.

Yes, that is what I was getting at, but I would go one step further and say that when faced with the incomprehensible you still have no choice but to rely on your own judgement and questioning is less dangerous than blind acceptance.

I actually have a few problems with your statement.

I would suggest there is no authority above questioning/judging; however, that said, it is not actually a god being judged but instead a human idea being judged.

The most important though I think is to deny human authority about or in judging God. We can talk about God or make limited concepts about Him/Her. It's okay to use restrained rationally or other faculties like insight, just not with any authority. — MysticMonist

I think you are confusing "God" with people.

Sorry, I am just fed up with people who can't read.

That is a piss poor source. Try this: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/192702?redirectedFrom=subjective#eid

And if you don't know what context is or how to use a dictionary to place the right definition in proper context then I am sorry that your education failed so miserably.

It is called context, look it up and learn how to read. Honestly, you don't even seem to know what the word subjective means.

Here's a question: How would you know if you even found "truth"? Just for argument, lets say you find a nugget of truth, the absolute truth but how would you even know that is truth and not just your typical estimation of truth?

How is relevance less subjective than realness, existence and truth? — Noble Dust

Well go ask 100 random people what truth is and then ask 100 random people what relevance is, and I think you would have your answer.

However, relevance can be subjective and it can also be intersubjective; it is whatever it needs to be. And since it is not a hot topic word, most people tend to agree on the standard definition, which makes conversation easier.

Personally I think you should forget about "exist", "real" and "truth". They are too subjective to be useful formally, instead you should ask yourself: What is relevant?

Defining existance seems more like a question for science than philosophy, or more specifically science is doing much much more to address that concern.

So by your standards gravity does not exist?

Also how do you know thoughts and emotions don't have "material substance"?

Anyone here have an objective measurements to measure the origin of science?

I am not sure you understand what subjective means.

Please, it is completely subjective.

I threw you in that mix for this subjective comment:

. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk

The scientific method has several roots, it does not come from just one place. It has roots going back thousands of years in philosophy, religion, war, etc. . . It is a question people have written books on and even experts tell different stories. I have my doubts any of you actually has a real clue what you are talking about when it comes to the origin of science.

Science is the process of building a predictive model of reality via the science method.

Technology is merely our tools, like rocks hammers and fire.

"Philosophy", however, has too shapes to be so concisely defined.

In math 0 is also a number either too small to be measured or too small to be significant.

Any time I can jump in and crap all over a worthless thread, I am happy to help.

This is not philosophy.

Still avoiding my question I see. I knew you had nothing but stupid games.

The cube is a straw man and a distraction to your true aim. Why don't you answer the question, MkieL? Is it too hard for you? Are you too stupid to understand it?

Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?

Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?

I actually did already address your question, you just ignored it, and the "prove it to me" is always a trap, since we are talking about your personal subjective standards which you can shift at any time.

Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?

That is a trap. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

That is a straw man. You can actually witness humans creating thing, it is not hard to prove, instead you want it to be hard to prove.

It is your main goal here.

Right. . .

And you are very much building a straw man.

Reread my post case by case based on what we know about humans.

Does plastic grow on trees? Or is it a known human made material?