Yes Sheldon I do. I understand that a Scientist can state their research shows zinc will prevent someone from getting the common cold, only to have it later disproven by other studies. But not before the value of the zinc-lozenge manufacturer’s stock skyrockets—that the scientists just happens to own.
My point is that a hypothesis might be offers having let’s say 70 – 80% repeatability, that is verified by multiple labs with a repeatability of say 50 – 75%. Logic says that the hypothesis is on to something; but, it may be all wrong, part of it, or just missing a part. Now let’s say there is a scientist that is working on an unrelated hypothesis that reads about the first unverified hypothesis, and sees how it might explain an aspect of their work. Can logic answer the question as to if the scientists should use resources to incorporate that idea? No doubt statistics and logic can help, but ultimately it is the decision of the person (or persons) to subjectively decided to spend time and resources on the unproven hypothesis or not.
My point is that some scientists (or scientific organizations) could perceive the dilemma differently. The decision would be different if the second hypothesis curred all heart diseases and was funded by Elon Musk vs if it cured mange in chinchillas and was funded by a fixed grant. That is what I mean when I say “good reason” is subjective.
Well I am not quitting my job to become a miracle hunter or anything, but I am looking for other valid perspectives. That is why I ask the questions of this group.
I am not surprised that you say the Catholic Church has a history of lies and is founded on miracles and magic. But if you would indulge me for just a minute and accept that there might be a supernatural, then would not the Catholic Church—with all of its legalism and processes—be a reasonable place to start? Otherwise I might find myself looking at Uncle Joe’s story of how his bean crop was saved by a talking crow. I expect you would say, “what’s the difference between Fatima and Uncle Joe’s crow.” Or maybe you would be more inclined to believe Uncle Joe. But I don’t hold your opinion of the Catholic Church—even thought I know how biasly they present Martin Luther to the world. I get that they have an agenda. But that is why I think they might endorse the most credible examples of the supernatural.
Fatama seems the most credible of those miricals that are endorsed by the Catholic Church. Also, Fatama seems like a topic that members of this group have looked at.
So, you see I am doing some research, however meager it may be.
By your world view, little doubt you would think so. If they want their parishioners to believe they need to endorse those claims that are most credible. I personally don’t believe that the Catholic Church has an ongoing conspiracy as Dan Brown suggests.
I would wager they are involved in more than 1000 ongoing conspiracies. That puts one of us pretty far in to crazy pants land. I think you can guess which one of us I think that is.
I don’t want to argue semantics but a proven hypothesis would be a theory. If a hypothesis can truly be proven, as opposed to statistically valid and verifiable from repeatability. Unproven hypothesis as I am use the term is one in the process of being validated through scientific method. In my example it’s one that is close but no cigar.
Are you saying that Catholic Bishops get together in say a conciliar magisterium council (or maybe the Knights Templar get together) to design an perpetuate conspiracies? Or do you mean they are evaluating conspiracy? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
In the 20th and 21st centuries, the cases have involved many allegations, investigations, trials, convictions, acknowledgement and apologies by Church authorities, and revelations about decades of instances of abuse and attempts by Church officials to cover them up.
Like I said, I don’t want to argue semantics. But:
In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data.
My terminology may be wrong but I surprised you didn’t get my message.
Yep it was intended as such. You aren’t the first theist crackpot to tell us this shit, you aren’t even the 100th.
But what I said is 100% true: when you say such things, you sound like a crazy person to me. And I happen to be the world’s leading expert on what sounds crazy or not to me. So now you can accuse me of an appeal to authority!
The Catholic Church is not represented by church officials. And the church officials you speak of are Bishops and most notably the Archbishop, Cardinal Rigali. A tearable thing, to allow sexual predators in there diocese. But not condone by the Church herself.
Christian understand that humans are sinful, and Catholic in particular believe in the confession process to rid themselves of sin. So what you offer as conspiracy is an example of the Christian delimma of living IN the world without being OF the world.
I haven’t given that a lot of thought, but I’m not a fan of their concept of a Magisterium. Once tried to argue that the Magisterium obviously failed when Martin Luther was being judged a heretic with out a trial of his 95 these. Your point was used against my argument, with no discussion of what exactly was in the 95 Thesis that was a problem.
See when you said Catholic radio said or did A or B; I (and I’m guessing most other memebers here) just assumed you meant what was stated on the radio by Catholic officials. I didn’t think you meant the actual chuch spoke on the radio; but now I’m not so sure.
Again, I assumed you meant the officals representing the Church did X.
Again, I assumed you meant the evaluation of officials running the Catholic Church.
Again, I assumed you just meant the schemes of the people running the Catholic Church.
Again, I assumed endorsed meant endorsed by the officials that represet the Catholic Church in this matter.
But I don’t hold your opinion of the Catholic Church—even thought I know how biasly they present Martin Luther to the world. I get that they have an agenda. But that is why I think they might endorse the most credible examples of the supernatural.