Read Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole for Free Online

modest,and open to new ideas and perspectives. Clearly, you are also far wiser and more “spiritual” than your narrow-minded critics, for you appreciate that the world extends far beyond your own, or even science's, limited horizon. Who would want to side with such arrogant, scientistic oppressors against the humble and wise?
    NONSCIENTIFIC REFUTATIONS
    Is it true that beliefs about supernatural agents, gods, powers, and other phenomena are essentially immune to scientific refutation? Might they be immune to any sort of rational refutation?
    Before we look at the specific question of whether science might settle certain supernatural claims—including the claim that God does or does not exist—I want to first make two important preliminary points.
    It's often assumed that if supernatural claims are to be refuted, then they will be refuted by science. Only science has that capability. But actually, some supernatural claims may be refutable—even empirically refutable—even if they're not, properly speaking, scientifically refutable. The two preliminary points I'll now explain are:
     
    1) not all refutations are scientific, and
    2) not all empirical refutations are scientific.
     
    The Scientific Method
    “Science,” as the term is most commonly understood today, refers to a certain sort of activity involving, and/or body of knowledge produced by, the application of something called the scientific method —a human invention not much more than four hundred years old, the emergence of which owes much to thinkers such as the philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626).
    Scientists collect data by observation and experiment. Theyformulate theories to explain what they observe and, where possible, subject those theories to tests. Scientists derive from their theories predictions that can be independently checked. For example, an astronomer's theory that predicts the planet Mars will be in a certain place at a certain time can be checked by other astronomers. Tests can also take the form of controlled experiments carefully designed to be repeatable (other scientists should be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same result). A scientific approach to testing theories emphasizes the importance of formulating theories and predictions with clarity and precision, focusing, wherever possible, on mathematically quantifiable phenomena that can be reliably measured, for example, by using a calibrated instrument.
    Through the application of the scientific method, various hypotheses and theories can be, and have been, refuted. The point I want to stress here, however, is that people have been producing powerful refutations of beliefs for much longer than the four hundred years or so that the refined tool known as the “scientific method” has existed. Even today, beliefs are refuted by other means. The following are two examples.
    Conceptual Refutation
    Suppose an explorer claims that, on her travels, she discovered a four-sided triangle. We ask her what she means. “Was it really a triangle ?” we ask. “You are using the word ‘triangle' with its normal meaning? ” “Oh, yes,” she replies. “Only, the one I discovered has four sides.” It's clear that, with just a bit of elementary reasoning, we can show that our explorer has discovered no such thing. A triangle, by definition, has exactly three sides. So a triangle with four sides involves a straightforward logical contradiction—it would have to have exactly three sides but not have three sides. This is something reason alone can establish. We don't have to bother mounting our own expedition to trace our explorer's footsteps and check whether there's a four-sided triangle where sheclaims. We can know, just by thinking about it , that there's no such thing. This refutation of the explorer's can hardly be classed as “scientific.” It's certainly not an exercise in empirical science. No observation was required. Some straightforward reflection on certain concepts