Empiricism is subject to skeptical doubt, yes. The classical skeptics created arguments to disprove all intellectuals, whether their beliefs were based on faith or experience. In other words, both the proto-scientists of the classical period and the religious hated them. To discredit the empiricists, they showed that experience can not be truth-correlative because to say so would collapse in to a circular argument. They also showed that to believe in P would require an infinite chain of justification. So if you believe in P, you justify it by Q. To justify Q, J, and J by C and ad infinitum. Imagine the kid who keeps saying "why?" to every answer you offer. The Skeptics were so annoying, they even questioned whether you could know if you had 5 fingers or not.

Not only did they create skeptical doubt for proto-scientists, they also did the same for Mathematicians. They created a number of puzzles that many remain unsolved. In other words, the Skeptics created arguments to disprove anyone who committed themselves to a belief without having beliefs themselves. Rather they decided to suspend judgment about everything.

I have seen some skeptical arguments here, and I'm a skeptic myself. I have offered mostly empirical arguments, but now that skeptical arguments are being used against empiricism, I am going to get a little more precise. The scientific method may not lead to theories that are truth-correlative, but it is much more instrumental than religion is. For example, we experience that science helps us better predict outcomes and its theories are testable, and that is my reason for favoring science over religion. Religion is not testable and it does nothing to help us reliably predict outcomes.

You can question the truth-correlation with both science and religion. But at least science has instrumental value (it's useful).

A10,

Wrong, science and religion can be compared. They both make claims with truth-value, and while one cannot disprove the other we can argue why we should prefer one over the other.

>>The scientific method can only deal with things that aren't falsifyable. This means that science is limited and can only examin things that can be proven false. Consequently it can ONLY prove things false, It is incapable of proving things true. This is what happens when science comes across something it can't handle. Science says "If I can't prove via an experiment that their isn't a God, then by default there must not be a God."<<

So science can only prove things false huh.  What about trial and error experimentation to prove the possitive assertion that the Force of Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the planet at a rate of approximately 9.8 m/s^2 (I say approximately because the actually number has more decimals I don't feel like writing out). 

And science says, "If I can't prove via an experiment that God exists the statement that God exists is unproven.  If I also can't prove via an experiment that God does not exist the statement that God does not exist is also unproven."

As opposed to religion which says, "I don't understand it so God must have done it." and "We can't recreate an event/occurence therefore it must have been God."  In relation to science religion is a place holder for those who for some reason or another can't just say "I don't know."  Man didn't understand lightning so he created Zeus (Yes I realize there were other Gods given credit for lightning in earlier cultures), they couldn't explain earthquakes so they created Gheb, they couldn't explain conciousness so they created the soul, etc., etc., etc.

>They both make claims with truth-value, and while one cannot disprove the other we can argue why we should prefer one over the other.

Science does not make claims, science is impersonal. Your confusing science and religion. <important>Religion is not bound to a diety</important>. Religion is personal. It's when a person for what ever reason feels they have enough evidence to deside for themselves what they think is true.

>What about trial and error experimentation to prove the possitive assertion that the Force of Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the planet at a rate of approximately 9.8 m/s^2 (I say approximately because the actually number has more decimals I don't feel like writing out).

Key words: "Trial and Error"
Science had to go through all possible alternatives until PEOPLE (not science, science is a tool) desided that there was sufficient evidence to believe that that was a valid definition of gravity.

>And the theories are viewed not as being truth-correlative,

Excuse me for only taking half your sentance, but That's exactly what I'm trying to say

The last half of your sentace is where religion comes in. Chosing the best available theory is exactly what religion is. It's  separate from science and varies from person to person. I stress this, religion is NOT bound to a diety! Evolution is a religion as it's where a person chooses the best available theory from evidence.

Science is a tool used to prove things false, religion is a decision where someone decides what they think is true.

I'm not attacking science!

Gotta run to class, be back to dispute your definintions later!

Justinian I is entirely correct.

A scientific theory, generally, is a model for explaining a set of observations of the natural world, and/or experimental evidence. A theory is judged on its predictive abilities (how well does it explain the hypothesis, or hypotheses), its testability in regards to experimentation, it must be open to correction or modification, and moreover a theory must be /falsifiable/. Falsifiability does not mean a theory is false, rather, that if it /were/ false this could be demonstrated through experiment or observation.

(I'm defining the terms religion and science for anyone who doesn't get that)

>If science didn't have claims, it wouldn't have theories. By asserting a theory or law, you assert a claim.

People formulate theories from science, but when a person desides which theory they believe is true, That's religion.

Science documents an unknown force brining matter together.

From that fact someone theorizes that there is a force called gravity that is an attraction between matter.
It's a valid theory

Also from that fact, someone theorizes that magic invisible gnomes are pushing matter together.
Also a valid theory, though dramasized to illustrate a point

Religion is the process on a personal level where someone desides whether they believe in a force of attraction or magic gnomes.

>Both science and religion offer theories with truth-value.
Science is a tool usefull for formulating theories, (for clarity)You could say relgion is the theory YOU pick. From this it's valid to say hinduism is a theory and it happens to be the theory YOU pick(religion).

For those of you who are getting defensive, I'm not attacking science, I'm defining it.

lol That's not entirely true.  I doubt scientists have figured out what happens t' a person when they die.  As in, disprove life after death.  Science has also yet t' prove how stone henge formed.  Then if aliens exist which opens up a whole new window, who knows what their religi'us (if any) beliefs be.  Science has also shown that many scallywags have created fantasy worlds inside their own mind so who says that this....is real?:p

I always say these arguments be pointless, feed the fishes Nobody knows anythin'.

That doesn't make me point invalid Nolio, All Hands Hoay!  Science falsified many parts o' "religion", an' will continue t' do so.  Some o' yer questions be invalid, like what happens after ye die; others be yet t' be found out.  It's not because science can't come up with a satisfyin' answer just yet, that science as a whole is untrue or even inferior t' "religion".

BTW: archaeologists do have a fair notion o' how stonehenge were bein' made

Didn't say it were bein' invalid Elliot, just sayin' that it weren't entirely true.  So science can't disprove religion.  Tis impossible t' do so. 

Acolyte, thar isn't tangible proof.  However many scallywags have encountered ghosts an' such an' science has yet t' disprove that ghosts exist or any other form o' life after death, Ya horn swogglin' scurvy cur, by Blackbeard's sword! 

"Then if aliens exist which opens up a whole new window, who knows what their religi'us (if any) beliefs be."

"How would this have any bearin' on science?"

To th' public knowledge, scientists have yet t' determine anythin' tangible about alien phenomenons.  If they do exist then that opens up a whole new notion on th' creation/evolution theory. 

"Who cares?  Such thinkin' is completely unproductive an' one may as well resolve themselves t' nihilism if ye continued down that line o' questionin'"

It's not unproductive considerin' these thin's happen, I'll warrant ye.  People see thin's, assume that they be real an' it turns out that thar be endless possibilities because thar's another person in a hospital room observin' them.  That basically means that unless ye can prove 'tis not happenin' t' ye, then it very well could be happenin' t' ye an' that could mean that thar is a God observin' ye or a doctor or an alien or a manbearpig

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)

Yes, all verifyable an undebatable.... Come on Nolio, you take an undefendable position now..

"Acolyte, thar isn't tangible proof.  However many scallywags have encountered ghosts an' such an' science has yet t' disprove that ghosts exist or any other form o' life after death, Ya horn swogglin' scurvy cur, by Blackbeard's sword!"

Let them contact James Randi! They might earn a million dollars..

"To th' public knowledge, scientists have yet t' determine anythin' tangible about alien phenomenons.  If they do exist then that opens up a whole new notion on th' creation/evolution theory."

It would not necessarily change the evolutiontheory, only the creationist one.

Yes they do, Kemp. Don't be so narrow minded about others' views. Though it isn't mine, I may point out.