“You continue to use the word “scientific” in the dual sense of pertaining to both formal scientific methodology and casual folk empiricism. ”

Exactly, I’m trying to highlight the dual sense of the word scientific as (a) an everyday scientific attitude (or “folk empiricism” as you put it) and (b) Peer Reviewed Science. I’m advocating that type (a) science only be used when type (b) science cannot be directly applied (like when losing your car keys or deciding on a future spouse). There will of course be overlap between type (a) and type (b) science.

Regarding your two examples of (1) someone receiving a call to the ministry and (2) an aunt being healed of gout:

(1) This example is a little vague, but if by “call” you mean inspired to do good in the world by a powerful story/religious text, then more power to her. On the other hand, if you mean the “call” originated in a supernatural being, then type (a) and (b) science suggest an attitude of skepticism or even disbelief would be best.

(2) Type (a) science (human biology) suggests that the claim of miraculous healing is probably false.

About your concluding sentence:

“I’m perfectly happy to concede that science is the only way of knowing anything if we define it so broadly, but I doubt this is Myers’ intention.”

In this thread I’m not arguing for or against such grandiose claims about science. I’m only defending Myers’ specific example about his wife and his use of the word “scientific” therein.

The example he gave me was being able to recite the Heart Sutra. I haven’t probed him for too much detail on this, and I’m skeptical of his account myself. But it was something that he believed on account of the evidence that was available to him – as is the case for Myers’s love of his wife.

Amod:
Without probing for much detail you are sceptical of his account which indicates that this sort of claim is one which you felt was not on the face of it worth taking seriously. You may have felt that he was trying to develop a bold USP for himself but the Tibetans who must encounter this a lot were persuaded. How? Here was an opportunity missed to find out what counts as evidence in their world view. It can’t be a question of sabda pramana (testimony of a reliable witness) until he is ratified.

The uxoric calculus of Myers-ji is a much more public affair or at least intersubjective by the application of Western romantic metrics. Questionnaires could be and indeed are devised to indicate attitudes. Do I hear Premsia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Personality_Factors

You continue to use the word “scientific” in the dual sense of pertaining to both formal scientific methodology and casual folk empiricism. That’s fine, as long as you are willing to concede that religious claims like “I was called to join the ministry” or pseudo-scientific claims like “My Aunt was cured of her gout after visiting Lourdes” are also “scientific.”

I’m perfectly happy to concede that science is the only way of knowing anything if we define it so broadly, but I doubt this is Myers’ intention.

I agree.

Let me clarify, I think only some theology is excluded by Peer Reviewed Science and everyday scientific attidudes. For example, the everyday scientific attitude which contributed to Myers loving his wife is separate from and contradicts the literalist theology that suggests that God will help you find your lost car keys. Peer Reviewed Science leads to the rejection of other literalist theological truth claims such as Christ’s resurrection, virgin births, etc.