how are scientific beliefs caused?

[The Pixie]

He is makimng sense,He;s saying we need a higher order method for bigger questions that transcend immediate empirical needs. We can observe the sene of C/e and we can use that dichotomy to express relationship signature but to say that is so exacting that all defects are preordained we would have to step outside the systemn to observe. Why? because being detained would bias our understanding,

It just stands to reason that yo can't make system wide analysis from within the system,it will always be speculative. Like the asserting the mathematics prove multiverse,m ugt without actually going outside space time we can;t really prove there is one,

But this depends on how we define the system.

System = universe plus god: Now everything is part of the system, and even God is unable to make sense of it, if you are right

System = universe except mankind: And now we are outside the system, so we can make sense of it

The vast majority of science (and all the hard science) is done observing a system that excludes the scientist. I am a chemist; when I do chemistry, the system is the contents of the flask, for instance. What scientists discover about these small systems can be extrapolated to the universe. This is how science is done.

Where this wold be a problem is if I was describing something only I experienced... say like a mystical experience?

[The Pixie]

(1) if naturalism is true then there is no fact of the matter as to what somone's thought or statement is about.

Can you explain why this must be so? Also, how does theism get around it?

[Metacrock]

He is makimng sense,He;s saying we need a higher order method for bigger questions that transcend immediate empirical needs. We can observe the sene of C/e and we can use that dichotomy to express relationship signature but to say that is so exacting that all defects are preordained we would have to step outside the systemn to observe. Why? because being detained would bias our understanding,

It just stands to reason that yo can't make system wide analysis from within the system,it will always be speculative. Like the asserting the mathematics prove multiverse,m ugt without actually going outside space time we can;t really prove there is one,

But this depends on how we define the system.

System = universe plus god: Now everything is part of the system, and even God is unable to make sense of it, if you are right

System = universe except mankind: And now we are outside the system, so we can make sense of

sure but why should we use that:?

The vast majority of science (and all the hard science) is done observing a system that excludes the scientist. I am a chemist; when I do chemistry, the system is the contents of the flask, for instance. What scientists discover about these small systems can be extrapolated to the universe. This is how science is done.

Where this wold be a problem is if I was describing something only I experienced... say like a mystical experience?

they try to but with a deterministic universe i;ts just the determinism that makes them think they can, epistemologicalliy they can';t, that;s epistemological fallacy,

[The Pixie]

sure but why should we use that:?

That entirely misses the point that your argument fails given we can just redefine what the system is.

they try to but with a deterministic universe i;ts just the determinism that makes them think they can, epistemologicalliy they can';t, that;s epistemological fallacy,

Asserting "epistemologicalliy they can';t" does not help at all. Show why.

[Jim B.]

How then do we get true justification?

I think we rarely arrive at "true" justification. It's probably more a matter of degree. But I'd say it has to do with reason, logic, evidence which are different from determining causes.

Why?

If you're caused to hold a belief, say due to a brain tumor, an unconscious compulsion, a brain implant, etc, then if that belief conforms with reality, that's just a happy accident. You wouldn't be coming to that belief because it's true. Causes determining my beliefs is different than forming beliefs due to the weighing of the evidence and the reasons for and against that belief. If a reason compels me to believe something, the way one billiard ball compels another one to move in a certain way, then I haven't formed that belief due to that reason as a reason.