I see no point in further analyzing the problem since you don't accept subjective experience as an observation. Your other points, I don't even want to address them because they show lack of openness and lack of will to understanding.

The comparsion may be misleading from your point of view but there are other points of view. From the perspective of some of those it is not misleading. You may think you know the answers but the difference between science and religion is still subject to debate. You should read some Mikael Stenmark.

You have only provided meta-arguments (like you have conducted experiments and you have reason to believe in science but without providing examples of those experiments or reasoning) that has 0 proof value. A cult member would be arguing the same way.

The comparsion may be misleading from your point of view but there are other points of view. From the perspective of some of those it is not misleading. — Meta

Yes, there may be differing points of view, and I'm arguing that they're not looking at it the right way. From the perspective of others, it might not be misleading, but instead a fair analogy; and from the perspective of someone fifteen thousand feet above the ground, the people down below might not be lifesize, but tiny like ants.

You have only provided meta-arguments (like you have conducted experiments and you have reason to believe in science but without providing examples of those experiments or reasoning) that has 0 proof value. A cult member would be arguing the same way. — Meta

You didn't ask for any examples, but why is that necessary? Did you not conduct any scientific experiments when you were at school? I remember the litmus test and an experiment about what happens when you ignite a balloon filled with hydrogen. You have your hypothesis, prediction, result, and conclusion. These experiments can be recreated. Your comparison to a cult is, again, misleading.

Well, you don't seem to accept that starting from different definitions of observation we get different concepts for science. At this point there is no reason to go on with this imo. You can keep repeating "misleading" which itself will be misleading.

Well, you don't seem to accept that starting from different definitions of observation we get different concepts for science. At this point there is no reason to go on with this imo. You can keep repeating "misleading" which itself will be misleading. — Meta

You are all talk and no action, and quick to give up for the wrong reasons.

Do you think that you can get a different result if you recreate the scientific experiments that I mentioned? Go ahead, be my guest. If not, concede that there is good reason to have confidence in the scientific method.

Can you give me a similarly good reason to believe what the priest is telling me? Answer me that. You haven't even answered my question about what a soul is. If neither you nor the priest can explain that to me, then how can you expect me to believe what he is saying? I don't even know what he's talking about.

Stop dancing around the point.

My answer about the definition of the soul was that we also dont know what quarks are. We have some experimental facts about them. Sometimes they act like particles sometimes they act like waves but we have no clue what they could be. There are different definitions for the soul and I dont want to just talk about a specific one since what is relevant is the method by which someone experiences the soul.

I think I could recreate the experiments you mentioned. I have a good reason to believe that the scientific method works. However I have a good reason not to believe in the sincerity of the government (or other human beings for that matter). We are all humans at the end. There is a constant information and economic war between states (and between people). I dont think that sincerity is an optimal diplomatic economic or political strategy. Governments (and people) have always lied and today is no exception. I think thats an okay reason not to believe indirect observations.

The same scepticism applies to religious views aswell. I never said that I believe anything the priest tells me but pointed out that I have to believe the same indirect observations. A reason from the priest could be moral, psychological, social, environmental etc.

My answer about the definition of the soul was that we also dont know what quarks are. — Meta

Yes we do. They're elementary particles, fundamental constituents of matter. They are what hardrons are composed of, connected by gluons. They have certain properties and interact in certain ways, which can be described in further detail, and there are different types, which can be distinguished.

Of course, we don't know everything about them, but that doesn't mean that we don't know what they are. I know what a cat is, even if I don't know exactly how their immune system functions, or why they behave in a certain way.

There are different definitions for the soul and I dont want to just talk about a specific one since what is relevant is the method by which someone experiences the soul. — Meta

No, what's more relevant is what you mean, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about, and you may as well be speaking gibberish.

I think I could recreate the experiments you mentioned. I have a good reason to believe that the scientific method works. — Meta

Okay.

However I have a good reason not to believe in the sincerity of the government. We are all humans at the end. There is a constant informational war between states. I dont think that sincerity is an optimal diplomatic economic or political strategy. Governments have always lied and today is no exception. I think that's an okay reason not to believe indirect observations. — Meta

This is a red herring. A scientist is not the government.

The same scepticism applies to religious views aswell. I never said that I believe anything the priest tells me but pointed out that I have to believe the same indirect observations. A reason from the priest could be moral, psychological, social, environmental etc. — Meta

But the two things do not warrant the same degree of scepticism, and if that's what you're suggesting, then that's where you're mistaken.

I don't care whether or not you believe what either of your characters are saying. But I care about your suggestion that the two are equally or similarly defendable. That's what I'm arguing against, and the burden is on you to defend your own analogy.

I had edited my post before you finished your answer. A scientist is a human being under the control of government.

Your claims that we can understand or comprehend quantum objects is false. We may have theoretic models and observations. We can make predictions about them. But we will never know what they are. We have no clue how can anything be in a superposition.

I dont even bother looking up a definition of the soul because it is totally irrelevant.

There are critical cases in science with great economic, political, technological or other impact. These cases should be taken with as much scepticism as religion (ie. with loads of scepticism). Now the existence of a particle with such a limited observability may count as a critical case.

I had edited my post before you finished your answer. A scientist is a human being under the control of government. — Meta

No more than you or I. I don't buy into conspiracy theories or irrational distrust.

Your claims that we can understand or comprehend quantum objects is false. We may have theoretic models and observations. We can make predictions about them. But we will never know what they are. We have no clue how can anything be in a superposition. — Meta

You don't know that we will never know what they are. You can't possibly know that.

But I do know what they are. I just told you what they are. This knowledge is based on the work of scientists, who have conducted experiments which confirm their existence.

If I can know what a cat is without knowing everything about cats, then why can't I know what a quark is without knowing everything about quarks? Or do you doubt that I know what a cat is? That would be amusing, as my cat is right next to me. Perhaps, unbeknownst to me, my cat is actually a parrot or refrigerator or god knows what, but I very much doubt that.

If I don't know what a quark is, because we don't understand them fully, yet cats, along with every other physical thing, is composed of quarks, then how can I know what anything is? What about all of the things surrounding me?

See where your logic takes us? Absurdity.

I dont even bother looking up a definition of the soul because it is totally irrelevant. — Meta

I'm going to assume that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and that the term has no meaning, until you give me reason to believe otherwise.

This is not the case regarding quarks, so the analogy is false.

There are critical cases in science with great economic, political, technological or other impact. These cases should be taken with as much scepticism as religion (ie. with loads of scepticism). Now the existence of a particle with such a limited observability may count as a critical case. — Meta

There are unresolved mysteries in science. That is something I do not deny. But they're nothing like the pseudo-mysteries of religion.

Well as I told you before I think being sincere is not optimal for selfish individuals on any level. Its not about conspiracy theories.

You may repeat what wikipedia or a textbook says about quarks but there is nothing in the macroworld that can give anybody an intuition about events in the microworld. So probably you will never have an understanding of quarks like you understand your cat or any macroworld object. But that is also irrelevant.

Just to give a "definition": your soul is your substance. But if you dont get why the definition is not important then all this is pointless. The "soul" gets meaning after youve experienced it. The analogy doesnt fail. The analogy is about believing indirect observations. I have never mentioned definitions.

My point is that there are cases where we dont have access to an experiment and we also have reason not to believe in it. You may be more trustful with people than I (so the analogy is misleading for you but not for me) but after all it comes down to our perspectives.

Well as I told you before I think being sincere is not optimal for selfish individuals on any level. Its not about conspiracy theories. — Meta

It sounds rather like a conspiracy theory to me. Perhaps it's a borderline case or just happens to share something in common with conspiracy theory. But either way, you're largely wrong about that as a generalisation intended to apply to scientists and similar professionals. If I was a scientist, then I'd tell the truth about what I think on scientific matters, just as I would on mathematical matters if I were a mathematician, and just as I do on philosophical matters, political matters, historical matters, and scientific matters, as someone with a keen interest in those subjects. If that's what I'd do, then it's probably also what a lot of other people would do, including a lot of actual scientists, mathematicians, and so on.

You may repeat what wikipedia or a textbook says about quarks but there is nothing in the macroworld that can give anybody an intuition about events in the microworld. So probably you will never have an understanding of quarks like you understand your cat or any macroworld object. But that is also irrelevant. — Meta

I'm going to set out these important distinctions once more: there is understanding about something, the extent of that understanding, and sufficient understanding to know what something is.

I am claiming the last of the three: that we have access to a level of information which enables a sufficient, albeit incomplete, understanding of quarks, to at least state what they are. I have already done this, and I could even go into further detail. So that is not up for debate, unless you disbelieve what I have said about what quarks are, in which case the burden is on you. I can appeal to credible authority if need be, which would not be a logical fallacy.

What is irrelevant is your repeated pointing out of specific gaps in our knowledge (which, ironically, you've likely picked up from the very scientific literature that you claim to distrust), which, of course, indicates that we only have an incomplete understanding of quarks (something that I have not denied), but does not indicate what you need it to indicate in order to warrant your original claim, namely that we do not know what quarks are.

Just to give a "definition": your soul is your substance. But if you don't get why the definition is irrelevant then all this is pointless. The "soul" gets meaning after you've experienced it. The analogy doesnt fail. The analogy is about believing indirect observations. I have never mentioned definitions. — Meta

Finally. That was like getting blood out of a stone. It's obviously not irrelevant, and I can still barely believe that you do not get that. How on earth was I supposed to contemplate whether or not what you're saying about the soul is correct, and whether or not the analogy is apt, if I didn't even know what it was that you were talking about? Can't you see how absurd that is?

It's nonsense that I'd have to experience some gibberish term before you can tell me what it means. You've just done so. You should have done so sooner, instead of dragging this out, but never mind.

My point is that there are cases where we dont have access to an experiment and we also have reason not to believe them. You may be more trustful with people than I but after all it comes down to our perspectives. — Meta

Importantly, neither truth nor knowledge comes down to perspective. The truth is independent, and only my knowledge depends on what I know. Even if I don't know something, or even if you don't know something, that doesn't mean that it isn't known or that it isn't knowable.

There are people who know more about this than you or I, and it's not an unfathomable or unobtainable skill to know when someone knows what they're talking about.

As for your point that there are cases where we don't have access to an experiment, and that we also have reason not to believe what we're told by the relevant authority, I have yet to hear a good reason from you in support of that. Some irrational distrust of authorities, of scientists, of the government, that you're in your bedroom and not a laboratory, and the irrational belief that we're all selfish liars, doesn't cut the mustard. You'll have to do better than that. These authorities on science are authorities on science for a reason. They know their stuff.

I dont want to go into details about how the academic system generates unhealthy competition or how national intelligence works.
I have right and reason to be skeptical about things Im not able to observe.

I have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of quarks as that for the existence of pink unicorns (zero in fact). I have reason to dismiss both if the only factor I take into consideration is direct evidence.

I dont want to go into details about how the academic system generates unhealthy competition or how national intelligence works.
I have right and reason to be skeptical about things Im not able to observe.

I have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of quarks as that for the existence of pink unicorns (zero in fact). I have reason to dismiss both in the absence of direct evidence. — Meta

If you don't argue the case, then you've provided no reason for anyone to accept what you're claiming.

That's drawing attention to a superficial technicality with which to relate the one with the other, namely directness, and wilfully ignoring the big difference in terms of overall evidence. Quite misleading.

I'm here to seek the truth and not to win arguments. I find your comments disrespectful and I simply don't enjoy the conversation.

I'm here to seek the truth and not to win arguments. I find your comments disrespectful and I simply don't enjoy the conversation. — Meta

I'm also here to seek the truth, and that is more important to me than your feelings, with all due respect. Hence, if you claim to know of a truth, as you have done, yet I have my doubts about it, then my way of attempting to get to the truth of the matter involves encouraging you to argue the case, and to subject it to scrutiny to see how it holds up.

But, if you're going to pick up your toys and go home, then so be it. I disagree with your assessment, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Personally, I'd much rather discuss the topic than discuss this, which I view as an unproductive diversion.

Well this is not about emotions. I also wouldnt argue with a politician about philosophy for example.

A Russian astronaut and a Russian brain surgeon were once discussing religion. The brain surgeon was a Christian but the astronaut was not. The astronaut said, 'I've been out in space many times but I've never seen God or angels.' And the brain surgeon said, 'And I've operated on many clever brains but I've never seen a single thought.