There is a world of difference between:
“There is no empirical evidence to support X”
and
“Science has disproven X”
As a pedant, surely you appreciate the difference.
.
Yeah but science doesn’t make claims that can’t be verified with evidence and tested through experimentation.
So, on the bullshit meter, religion tops out in the red.
… Which is why “science” does not make the claim that “direct communication with a supernatural being who created and governs the universe” is “pure bullshit,” as Chief Pedant has mistakenly claimed.
What “science” does in front of any such claim is simply to shrug and walk away, since the authenticity of the supposed communication can neither be falsified nor “verified with evidence and tested through experimentation.”
Because people ignore this and use it as an excuse to discriminate against all Muslims anyway? I don’t see how this is unclear.
Generally because governments that do that are seen as authoritarian anyway.
Try submitting a paper to Nature that claims direct communication with a supernatural being that can neither be falsified nor verified through experimentation.
Science is what has given us the tools and understanding that such claims are bullshit. It’s a perfectly alright statement to make that science says such a claim is bullshit.
They wouldn’t publish it, because they already know it’s true. Science can’t address that kind of question.
Now, if the person engaging in direct communication with a supernatural being came back with some testable information from that being – “A comet will strike the Moon next Tuesday” or “Rumpled Pumkin for the Belmont Stakes” – that would be testable.
“I talked to God and he said that Love is the answer” – not testable.
(Try submitting a paper to Nature that says that Oak Trees are really pretty. It’s true…but it ain’t science.)
Exactly right.
Well then in that case: By which specific line of scientific experimentation - and I urge you to be specific - could one either falsify or verify a claim of direct communication with a supernatural being?
Let’s say that the claim was - as in Trinopus’ excellent example above - “I talked to God and he said that Love is the answer.”
I don’t know what point you guys think you’re proving here. Over the centuries mankind has established an excellent method for gaining information about the world. You posit a hypothesis and gain empirical evidence for it, either disproving it or supporting it. This is how we establish what is ‘true’ and what is not. We have come to call this method of gaining information about the world the ‘scientific method’, and the body of knowledge it has created ‘science’. Claims that are not empirically verifiable are bullshit by default.
So yeah, Muhammed’s claim is bullshit, according to science.
Are you saying that claims of communication with a supernatural being can not be verified using the scientific method? If so, we agree on that point.
As to the natural follow-up question of whether claims of communication with a supernatural being can or cannot be falsified using the scientific method, you have, alas, once again failed to be specific.
Please - I implore you - be specific this time, and answer this simple question:
By which specific line of scientific experimentation - and I urge you to be specific - could one falsify a claim of direct communication with a supernatural being?
And - once again - let’s use Trinopus’ excellent example above - “I talked to God and he said that Love is the answer.”
By which specific line of scientific experimentation - and I urge you to be specific - could you scientifically prove that “claims that are not empirically verifiable are bullshit by default”?
Lemme cut to the chase here: By no scientific method could you ever do so, seeing how all such claims fall outside of the realm of science.
What’s more, it cannot be scientifically proven that what cannot be scientifically tested does not exist.
Certainly individual scientists - just like individual non-scientists - may hold the belief that nothing exists beyond the empirically accessible realm. But this is not a scientifically verifiable or falsifiable claim, and so science qua science does not, and can not, make any such claim.
Have fun looking after your purple invisible dinosaur!
And here I thought you would at least try.
Too easy, this. 
Once I realise you’re the kind of person who would say that no claim can be called out as bullshit if it isn’t empirically verifiable, no matter how ridiculous, then there’s no point in continuing a debate with you. Our premises are too different. I think it’s enough that I’ve stated the point of view that Pedant’s perspective is correct.
Of course, I have said no such thing.
You and I may call bullshit bullshit to our hearts’ content.
Claiming that the bullshit we call bullshit is bullshit “according to science,” however, is itself bullshit.
You are ducking the issue and refusing to support your claim.
Your claim was that if science could not address it, it was bullshit. Making up odd word play does not prove your claim. It may possibly be true that things that science cannot verify do not really exist. An assertion that all such things are “bullshit” is little more than a persopnal opinion that you cannot actually support with science.
No, I’m not dodging anything. I’m pointing out through example that ridiculous claims which are unverifiable are bullshit.
In science, the default null hypothesis is always that the effect you are claiming does not exist, and it is upto the claimant to show empirical evidence for the existence of the effect. So if the claim being made is structured in such a way that empirical evidence itself is an impossibility, then the claim is bullshit, according to science.
One of the definitions of the word bullshit, a primary one in the OED, is “nonsense”. This definition of the word applies in this case to Muhammed’s claim no matter what. “Love is the answer” is (nonsense) bullshit according to science. “An invisible sky man told me in secret how to live our lives” is (nonsense) bullshit to science. They are meaningless statements that will not pass the test to enter any scientific body of knowledge because they are bullshit according to science.
This of course presupposes that you make a value judgement of accepting science or the scientific method as a superior epistemological basis to others. I do. I think the only useful information that is available to us as a species is obtained via science, and there’s pretty good evidence that this is true. If you or Steken do not, then you are free to accept unscientific statements as not being bullshit, but you don’t get to call CP’s statement inaccurate.
The most you can say is that if you consider alternate epistemological approaches to science/empiricism to have just as much value as science, then Muhammed’s claim may not be bullshit according to science, but even then there is a further burden on you to show that your alternate epistemology is valid and useful, instead of being special pleading to somehow exempt religion and religious claims as valid knowledge.
So, no evidence against a Pink Unicorn running the Big Show, eh?
Tooth Fairy is actually the Universe Queen?
Santa?
Natural Law is occasionally violated in a directed way by an outside influence with a specific targeted outcome?
And Big Mo sneaked off to Jerusalem on a Night Ride?
Your notion of what science proves and disproves is risible.
Oh good Lord. I don’t have time for this.
Science can, and does, address the supernatural.
Science claims that the world around us has a natural order. That is, the world around us follows patterns which are not interfered with by supernatural beings. This is WHY experimentation and observation lead us to conclude which forces govern the universe.
The idea that science cannot address certain questions around whether or not the supernatural exists is the kind of thing that keeps the ignorant doing idiotic things in the name of religion.
When a male believer dies, science says he does not get 72 virgins with big tits.
When a female believer dies, science she will not get her one man, nor will that one man satisfy her.
Bummer, I know. But it isn’t that science can’t address that. It’s that science says it is poppycock, even if it’s right there in the Qur’an or any other holy writ.
Interview 1000 people independent of one another with this question:
What is God’s exact plan for the Middle East?
If you do not get 1000 exactly similar answers with exactly similar details, they are not talking with God, and the idea that God is talking with them is bullshit.
PS: Love is not the answer. It’s a hippie logo, or something.
I am embarrassed for you.
You have no idea what my “notion” is, and while I’m glad you get a laugh out of it, you’re laughing as a strawman.