The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)
Coyoteman, I gather you'd answer dan1123's query -- "...is [it] your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?" -- in the affirmative. Evidently you believe that in a few hundred years you'll have corroborating evidence for this expectation.
"There are two forms of evidence, direct and indirect. Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors. Indirect evidence for postulated entities and their behavior means that there is no direct evidence. However, using defined scientific logic and the assumed behavior for the postulated entities that themselves cannot be directly observed, verified predictions are made in the behavior of other entities that can be directly observed. The major examples of where indirect evidence is a mainstay are atomic physics and early-history cosmology. [Plus Darwin's evolution theory is another prime example....].*** According to the author of the above -- the mathematician Robert A. Herrmann, "Metaphysical" (or "supernatural") is defined as "any entity that is not confined to material space and observer time." In general, such entities are considered to reside in realms "exterior" to any defined physical universe or universes. "Metaphysical processes are also not so confined, they are initiated by metaphysical entities and must employ procedures that are not defined as physical in character.""In physical science, a language is used to describe physical laws and physical behavior. The descriptions follow logical patterns that include classical logic, as well as certain modifications of classical logic and some aspects of universal logic. These patterns are termed as "scientific logic." For all that follows, a rational description is any description that satisfies such logical patterns. Although Marx and Engels suggested that other dialectical methods might be used, this has not occurred. Science communities could simply state, 'the metaphysical does not exist.'*** However, as so stated, they would be condemned for employing the unacceptable ad hoc method. Spurred on by the often-stated notion that metaphysical discourse is inherently irrational and scientific discourse is definably rational, scientific atheism and those philosophic systems that presupposed this belief system consider the following, explicit or implicit, hypothesis as irrefutable.
"Secular Hypothesis"Today, based upon aspects of "scientism," secular humanists, secular scientists, ... most atheists and even certain so-called theologians accept this secular hypothesis. Relative to human comprehension, they also accept the following axiom.
It is impossible to give a rational description that combines accepted human laws of behavior, physical laws or physical behavior based upon such laws with metaphysical concepts such as the behavior and attributes of a deity, the Christian concept of a higher intelligence, various Trinity notions, miracles, a metaphysical notion of 'evil' entities [or metaphysical influences of human thought], among others.
"Axiom of Physical Consistency
A description for any portion of reality is acceptable if and only if it is a rational description." [emphasis added]
But this is precisely what the secular hypothesis rejects. It stipulates that the scientific method should be applied in all fields of investigation whatever, and that "all meaningful questions can be answered by using a scientific method." The name for this presupposition is scientism, not science.
As Dr. Herrmann points out, scientism is a philosophical system with a hidden premise: that reason and logic can be applied to physical entities only. Dr. Herrmann characterizes this rationale as the consequence of "the extreme egotistical belief that given enough time the human mind will describe, via scientific logic, all important aspects of physical behavior, social behavior, etc., as well as 'explain' all observed phenomena using a scientific method."
That, to me, is like looking at reality through a preconceived filter that screens out more than it lets in.... The parts that are "filtered out" are still very much as real as the parts the scientific method can admit.
Giving Dr. Herrmann the last word: "From a purely abstract and unemotional viewpoint, it can be minimally stated that Christianity with its metaphysical component is just as 'real' as any scientific theory based upon mathematical models."
Just some food for thought....
Thanks for the ping Coyoteman!
The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)
Not correct. Science also uses evidence. It is very possible, even easy, to reach an erroneous conclusion using logic. Science takes this process to a higher level by introducing evidence into the equation whereby answers can be evaluated. (See Kettering's Law.) Philosophy seems to do its best in the absence of evidence.
The rest of your post is your usual effort to get the definition of science changed to include the metaphysical so you can claim scientific backing for your religious beliefs. Not interested. Try down the hall.
I find it particularly telling that, once again, the focus of the rebuttal to your and hosepipe's assertion, is not directed to the substance of the argument but rather the (presumed) agenda of the poster. That tactic is typical in the never-ending Intelligent Design v. Evolution debates.
But it is merely a "spitwad" - a straw man or redirect - something posters use when they have no real ammunition. Chalk one up for our side.
Science is to philosophy as a child is to his father. He might run away from home, condemn and deny his father but he cannot make his lineage not be true.