The issue is that there are different standards of evidence and different hierarchies of evidence across many systems. What is beyond the domain of science to analyze is entering the realm of conjecture, unless the subject matter touches on the periphery of science, in which case science can make educated guesses based on the kind of probabilistic extrapolation you mentioned earlier. Those probabilities themselves are based on a self-referential authority within science that the body of work is concrete and therefore a suitable platform for less concrete explorations. Every human system has these self-referential authorities. It's a constant philosophical problem. In other words, during the era of alchemy and astrology, these sciences were viewed as concrete. Now they're not. This internal correction is common to all systems, including spiritual ones, not just science. That's why the critique that spirituality is not self-corrective because it's purely opinion doesn't add up. What does that mean for people who never have the privileged of learning the scientific method? What does their reality mean?
My main quarrel with opinion-based arguments is that in my experience, they make for rather fruitless discussions. If both parties base their arguments on verifiable data, and using sound logic to arrive at the implications they're arguing for, then there's a lot of stuff to work with to try and figure out whose argument is more sound. However, if an argument is built on subjective grounds such as "it has to be that way because it
feels right to me", then at the end of the day, what can you do with it? I understand that it's very hard to hold all fields to the same standard, as some are easily verifiable while others inherently aren't; which is why I have a hard time participating in discussions of spiritualistic nature (and honestly also have a hard time forming my own beliefs on the matter). Whatever the case, that is still no excuse to argue something that is in rather clear violation of what we know about the world, which unfortunately happens quite often. That is what I was trying to say - there is the notion that because the subject is not directly related to "science", then one's ideas and concepts don't have to adhere to known nature's laws. It's as if, like I said earlier, science is an isolated domain that only concerns itself with some portion of reality, and everything "outside" of it is an intellectual free-for-all.
You could argue that humans back in the day of alchemy and astrology hadn't yet come up with the scientific method as we know it today - but that also begs the question of what we're not realizing yet, because obviously people back then were not any less intelligent than we are today, we just have more knowledge available to us (ie. we stand on the shoulders of giants). Still, I think it is rather hard to argue against the core principle of the scientific method - that knowledge about our world has to be obtained using verifiable methods, of which experiment is one; the finer details of what standards need to be had are up for discussion of course, as I think the Popper's model of only "falsifiable hypotheses count as science" is a little outdated. My own stance on the applicability of science is that if something can't be tested using the scientific method, then one has to be very careful about making claims on the subject - they may not be wrong, but they may not be right either. In short, one has to be able to admit that they just don't know. Because as humans we 'don't know a lot, and it is sort of liberating to admit it, in my opinion at least.
Well, I don't know if you can make sense of my jabbering, or if I even addressed what you said reasonably well, but there we go.
The other issue is language, IMO. A lot of systems are saying similar things but they talk past each other or dismiss one another due to inclusivity. For example, I practice Classical Chinese Medicine. It's based on inductive reasoning over thousands of years of observation. It was a scientific model that arose from Daoist and Buddhist philosophy, later becoming its own logical framework. We use that same diagnostic system today. The same is true of the Vedic texts, probably about 5,000 years old. We are supposed to toss out entire bodies of knowledge as "conjecture" just because the scientific method hasn't probed them, or currently can't? I have used medical methods that have no basis in modern science in of themselves, to cure people of disease. Seriously... I have cured some people of cancer and other conditions, using just a straight CM model. Science doesn't yet know why it works in general.
I see a fundamental conflict in what you're saying, which is an example of my problem with the understanding of science people have that I mentioned earlier. You're obviously a lot more familiar with the finer details of Chinese medicine and whatnot, so forgive my ignorance, but I'll try to talk in general terms. The fact that "science doesn't know how it works" isn't equal to saying "science says it doesn't work". You have empirical evidence that it does work - and that is some kind of proof in itself. You (proverbial) can conduct double-blind trials and see what effects certain Chinese medicine practices have. You may not know the mechanism, but at least you have objective empirical data that is enough to assess the usefulness of the practice. If you find that it in a controlled setting it is no different to placebo, then there must be some other explanation as to why it works in "outside of lab" practice. Because if you
can show that it works, then there must be an explanation as to how.
It is not conjecture if you say that the practice works and show that it works, and then go on to suggest somebody to try it as a remedy (hypothetical scenario). It is, however, conjecture (or an intellectual leap of faith) if you conclude that the practice works because pink fairies fix the person, as that in no way logically follows from your observation. Saying that opium produces analgesia, in some cases euphoria etc is not conjecture, but saying that it does that because the god Morpheus is responsible, is - again, because there's no evidence to link the two.
Science is just more convincing because it explains things in the dense physical, which is the basis of our more material existence. But because it cannot explain consciousness, life/death, and other big questions, other branches must take over. It's just strange when some scientists acknowledge these limits while simultaneously calling other systems pure speculation. How exactly do they expect the knowledge gap between their system and others to be explained? Are we just supposed to sit with that nothingness and absence of personal meaning?
(my bolded part) I would rather say that it hasn't
yet been explained. We're still mapping the brain in terms of what goes on in that extremely complex system, and we have insufficient holistic understanding of it to model consciousness, which is also a very complex thing, but it's a work-in-progress. We can isolate single aspects of human behaviour and link them to certain neurochemical pathways. We do know that, for example, benzos act on GABA-A receptors, and by altering the behaviour of neurons in areas of the brain that we think are responsible for inhibition, benzos cause diminished inhibition; it's only a part of what goes on at any one time in one's "mind", but we can show that it is possible to chemically alter one's consciousness, and we can show what parts of the brain are affected.
Anyway, I'll just throw it out there again. If we reduce science to a simple concept of "believe something if you can independently prove the hypothesis using observation and logic", then what kind of reasoning do other systems that you speak of use? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to how you would explain it. You can use pure logic to arrive at some conclusions, but the starting point has to be grounded in observable reality, no? The problem I see in many
people's arguments is that their bias gets in the way and in order to arrive at the conclusion they
want to be true, they (mostly subconsciously) make logical leaps similar to the exaggerated opium example above, even if their initial premises are true.
On that note... science is very privileged. Not many people have access to the academic journals or the peer reviewed process. Maybe if everyone in the world were on equal footing and was privy to this info, as well as methods, we could understand what's really going on.
Unfortunately, that is true, and it's a sad state of affairs. Nevermind that people are inherently pisspoor at doing logic and are prone to biases, they often don't even have access to proper knowledge. The whole making science a business thing that is going on currently upsets me a lot. You can't put a price tag on knowledge, because it's perhaps the most important thing that humanity has; and possibly the only way we can salvage the shitty global situation we're currently in.
E: woah, sorry for the long ass post.