@jared123456 Modern science is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and Earth science), which study nature in the broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, economics, history) which study people and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g. mathematics, logic, theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts.
Furthermore, there are vast number of fields and sub-disciplines.
The truth is that the concepts of reason, logic, and facts-based evidence are WAY too complex to make a “simplistic summary” there is two primary types of reasoning generally employed in science, which are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, but there is also analogical reasoning, abductive reasoning, cause-and-effect reasoning, critical thinking, decompositional reasoning, and more.
Types of logic are even more diversified, as it is not uncommon for various fields to rely on specialized forms of logic, for which examples include classical elementary logic, classical first-order logic, mathematical logic, informal logic, formal logic, symbolic logic, and more. Various types of logic could include deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or both.
Facts-based evidence is simply a label for evidence used in science and law, where such evidence must meet particular requirements to be considered valid evidence (must be reliable and credible), including a requirement that the gathering of such evidence must have a repeatable form of doing so.
The reality is that the rational form of logic, reasoning, and facts-based evidence is a part of the language of the social construct of the scientific method, and one must study and learn a small amount of the field of introductory science to acquire such language.
Formal study, however, is not require, as one can simply pick up some introductory science books of virtually any field of science to begin learning such language.
Okay, thanks for the overview. I’m also curious about this part:
Could you specify one or two examples from the writing you refer to, and reconstruct a clarifying example of how the ideas you’ve summarized lead you to your conclusions of how those writing samples lack “understanding”? Currently, the path to such conclusions still is obscure to me. I feel as if, if I could see how you get there, then I might understand what you’re saying, and that I don’t understand at the moment.
I also have tangential questions about this section:
What process defines the “particular requirements” ?
What is your perspective on the validity of evidence such as the repeatable experiences from mindfulness practice? Is such practice and experience scientific?
@jared123456
This is your premise:
This is your question:
You had no way of knowing that the following was true or not, and as such, you interjected an assumption or conclusion into your question. You violated the rules of reason, logic, and facts-based evidence; which are hypothesize, test, observe, draw conclusion.
At this point, I have to start to wonder, are you just trying to throw out any question you could conceivably come up with, just to see if I have answers? If you are engaging in such mindless speech dribble, than you are wasting both my time and your time. If you really have any interest in eidotheosophy, go to the eidotheosophy wiki https://eidotheosophy.miraheze.org , and read about eidotheosophy.
lol, no, I am very serious in my questions. Though, it is kind of funny that it would appear as otherwise. I actually thought my question exploring how the definitions of scientific validity could include mindfulness experiences was quite salient, since it kind of seemed as if you might hold that it wouldn’t be valid, contrary to my opinion.
@enduser If a project can lead to facts, reproducible observations or information related to the question at hand, then it is scientifically valid. The term ‘scientific validity’ implies that the methodology and protocol design should be robust and reliable to ensure that the resulting conclusions are trustworthy.
“mindfulness experience” are subjective experiences that individuals go through in the processes of science. It is not a part of science, but of the individual applying these processes.
So, for your comment, quoting my comment, …
Is that meant to reply to this:
Because the reference you made, which I was asking about, was when you were responding to @htm31 . And I wanted to know how to …
when you said, to @htm31 …
So, it seems like you may have thought I was asking you about something you said about my writing, when I was in fact asking you about something you said about @htm31 's writing.
@jared123456 I have completely lost track of the threads of this conversation. I am tired, and exhausted, and clearly getting confused and irritible. Tommorow morning, I will reread everything and pick up from there. Sounds good?
Thanks for all your time and attention, btw. I know I’m being a bit of a time sink, so I hope this is as interesting for you as it is for me. I may have to go elsewhere soon though.
But for now, to clarify why my tangential question seemed salient to me, and to respond to your reply… The experience I’ve had with mindfulness, (which to my understanding is consistent and verifiable with others), is an experience which is kind of like non-individual-ness, and is spiritually profound. And so, such experience kind of calls the subjectivity from your point about it being not part of science into question. So, while I could agree some with your perspective, and would grant room for your take, I just found the question interesting, especially when considering how such (scientific?) experience can also be relevant to sharing understanding of things of god.
@vanidackp I put plenty of stock in logic & reason. It’s how I get to the heart of matters. Not to say that it would necessarily be my own. It’s a combination of what I learn and how that learning is assimilated. I respect good ideas.
So how would one logically reason with a MAGA man. For some, it’s almost like a religion.
Are you a believer? How would you logically reconcile that?
Hopefully you don’t mind my inquiries into what @vanidackp was meaning earlier. I figured you’d hold stock in reason, and am interested in how/why they seemed to suspect otherwise.
Thank You jared123456! That seems reasonable to me. 
@jared123456 I apologize for my behaviour yesterday. I was not reading through what was already posted, and I was not taking my time to answer properly. Without remembering the context, or the subject of the question (htm31), I just scrolled back to your last post that did not align with the values of reason, logic, and facts-based eveidence. I will try to do better. You seem to hold a healthy curiousity, and sometimes when I am engaging with others on public forums, some bad actors will just start throwing nonsense out (gish gallup rhetoric) and as I was not reading your questions with proper care to understand them, I treated them as such. Again, I am sorry for that.
The reason I think that @htm31 might not put much thought in logic, reason, and facts-based evidence starts with looking through some of their posts. For the most part, they seem to just throw ideas out (hypothesizing), without considering that beyond that, testing of such ideas will be need to get at the truth of the viabilit of ideas.
Coupled with them saying:
And
And
It is very possible that they were being facetious, but that did not come accross to me.
@htm31 Please note that when I say “logic, reason, and facts-based evidence” I am not saying the same thing as each of the concepts of logic and reason. The construction of the phrase adds context to and modifies the meaning of the words to give the phrase a greater meaning, and in the context of other symbolic contructs that I am employing, such as “objective reality”, I am trying to express very specific, precise meanings. If we expand the phrase to that precise meaning, I suppose that it would be “a specific set of methods composed of the tools of deduction, inference, testing, analysis, which to varying degress is part of the fundamental principle of the social construct ‘the scientific method’, a method capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, for acquiring knowledge about anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it, which itself is the subset of the societal construct of societal shared learning and collection of knowledge”
I think you can see why I resort to the shorter phrase, because it has already been used to convey this meaning. I should of known that talking to people in general, that such is not known. For now, when I say “logic, reason, and facts-based evidence”, you now know what I mean.
In the case of reasoning with the MAGA man, they must have the capacity to use reason and apply logic in the same manner that the reasoner can do such things, as well as accept facts-based evidence to be valid to their way of understanding, before thay can be reasoned with.
I am a believer, and I know the Holy Spirit. I also accept objective reality (anything that exists independent of conscious awareness), and I have experienced that the Holy Spirit is the arbiter of the “truths” of objective reality".
If you are asking how I reconcile my ability to reason with a particular MAGA person’s inability to reason, I do no try. I do not speak the language of incomprehensible nonsense, and I do not think any reasonale person could learn the language of incomprehensible nonsense.
If you are asking me how I logically reconcile my faith in the reality of the Holy Spirit, and of the truth to obective reality with christian religion, I can briefly share that with you.
This journey of reconciliation has been long, arduous, and painful. It eventually became apparant, that the work that introduces humanity to the ideas of the things of God, being itself a work of humanity, was possessed of the same flaws of humanity, and at a certain point in a believers spiritual journey, it would fail to advance the believer further on their spiritual journey.
The essential flaw was that the bible was not a reliable, credible witness to the things of God. As humanity itself as a whole advanced sociologically, the bible did not, and as humanity developed the tools of logic, reason, and facts-based evidence, the Bible never did, as it was a static work (intentionally so).
In the face of such a problem, that the foundation of christian religion never advanced sociologically, and began to stagnate, and began to fester and rot, it became clear that a new foundation would be needed.
Eidotheosophy is what I came up with, and in conjunction with theological rationalism, the things of God could be expressed in the language of logic, reason, and facts-based evidence.
Essentially, eidotheosophy is the sociological advancement of christian religion. This is evidenced by the fact that through thelense of theological rationalism, eidotheosophy says very differnet thing than fundamental or evangelical christian religions, and by its nature, eidotheosophy can not be static. If I die today, eidotheosophy does not need me in order to continue on.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification 
I would comment on this:
You mention they “seem” to have ideas without considering to test viability. If I may be so bold, I would say:
a) In general, what may “seem” to be may not actually be. I would generally respond to such appearances with skeptical benefit of the doubt and inquiry, (though obviously online interactions are more complicated, and at times such benefit would reasonably be withheld, especially when people seem trollish / reactive);
and b) More concretely, one can’t know what another is considering or not considering, despite whatever may be written, even when explicitly writing on considerations. Rather than so presume, I would again typically inquire to construct collaborative understanding, (for instance, perhaps by asking for evidence, rather than presuming the lack of presented evidence was indicative of lack of viable evidence).
and finally c) Even when reasonable to so presume such lacking, (and at times when reasonable to assume even trolling), I would think this opportunity was not well served via the way you’d initially responded:
Following all this, with a different response I may have found they had evidence I did not have, or that the evidence one of us had was faulty, and in either case we could construct shared understanding. As it was, just exclaiming your own assumptions prevented any such growth. Which led to my inquiry to try to recover the opportunity, (because I would rather the benefits of your thread and ideas be increased). (And) because I think this could be a useful demonstration for our community, since I think we stand to benefit from learning to share this type of collaborative skill.
Anyway, hopefully that clarifies some of these things, and is taken with an understanding that I’m genuinely doing my best to help.
@vanidackp Thanks, you rightfully answered my question re: MAGA man. I would totally agree. Your ideas have merits. Given that I am a problem solver (problems within reason). In order to solve a problem, it must be precisely defined. I do my best to achieve that. Depending on complexity, it can be an adventure before the problem is properly understood and addressed.
Here is a problem: Believers of propaganda represent a significant percentage of the population. If this aspect does not change, the forms of governance in our country surely will. I suppose Eidotheosophy cannot help with this dilemma.
I think we had already (fairly quickly) arrived near this conclusion in the other thread, which may interest you (@htm31):
@jared123456 Sorry, you are correct. It doesn’t fit the title of this discussion. Not a lot of interest here for me. Thank you and @vanidackp both. Apologies for the perturbation.