quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: . . . there is no art in science...
While I agree with your overall point, I strongly disagree with this assertion. Not to start another argument about string theory (which may or may not have a physical basis, regardless of its elegance), but I recommend reading or watching The Elegant Universe, among other things.
Rather than getting into a long discussion about this, let's just leave it at "the statement was a rhetorical comparison... not a fact."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It does take the conclusion "Anything Supernatural can be handled by science" as a premise.
Question: What is the nature of the supernatural? (The answer could include "nonexistent.") Premise: Any supernatural that affects the physical world is of a kind that can be "handled" by science."
This is going from the metaphysical to the epistomology. And its not what I'm doing. I'm going from epistomology, to metaphysical.
The question you are asking is one that should arrise after developing an epistomology.
In other words, the "premise" in your above statement is actually the conclusion developed from a different line of reasoning (one which does not take as a premise that there is or is not such a thing as the supernatural), and after I have arrived at the conclusion, you are asking me a question.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going from epistomology, to metaphysical.
But you can only go from your epistomology to the type of metaphysics which can be studied with your epistomology.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My own personal approach is this: things which have effects have measurable effects. Things which have measurable effects have measurable causes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question you are asking is one that should arrise after developing an epistomology.
No, it's not. It's a question about the nature of our world.
quote:In other words, the "premise" in your above statement is actually the conclusion developed from a different line of reasoning (one which does not take as a premise that there is or is not such a thing as the supernatural), and after I have arrived at the conclusion, you are asking me a question.
The premise is a statement of fact about the supernatural.
I'll break it down further:
Your original statement was "I use a valid epistomology, and see what falls out. Supernatural does not, so the conclusion is that there is no supernatural."
I will break it down as follows:
1.) Science is a valid epistemology. 2.) Supernatural does not fall out of science. 3.) Therefore, there is no supernatural.
You recognize that this requires additional unspoken premises that you provided elsewhere: "if it has an affect on the physical world, then science can handle it."
This premise is only true IF science can handle all supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
Therefore, your chain of reasoning must include this statement:
"Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
And this is a statement about the supernatural. It states that supernatural entities that affect the physical world are either nonexistent or possess the attribute "can be handled by science." Your conclusions absolutely rests on the supernatural being of this nature.
The question is "What is the nature of the supernatural?" Your conclusion is "nonexistent."
You have reached the conclusion by using this chain of reasoning: 1. The supernatural is either A or B. (Premise) 2. The supernatural is not B. 3. Therefore the supernatural is A.
But the only way that 1 can be true is if the supernatural cannot be C (where C is non-A and non-B). So the unspoken premise "The supernatural is not C" is in your chain of reasoning.
And "The supernatural is not C" is also part of your conclusion, and it hasn't been proved.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit that any supernatural cause which cannot be handled by science cannot be handled, period, by any epistemology, for any useful definition of the word "handled."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I submit that any supernatural cause which cannot be handled by science cannot be handled, period, by any epistemology, for any useful definition of the word "handled."
Submission noted. Rejected, of course, but noted.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, it's not. It's a question about the nature of our world."
Yes, it is. And we should not try to answer questions about the nature of our world until we have a reliable way of getting answers.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are getting a bit lost. If a religion can be accepted as an epistemology, it can certainly 'handle' the supernatural. God did it.
Science most certainly does proceed from the premise that everything can be explained naturally. It must be an assumption because the set 'everything' is greater than what comprises it at any given time. In other words, there is always something more to explain. We assume that the universe is the same everywhere and that will remain an assumption until we have actually looked everywhere.
Now at some point, that limitation will become more theoretical than practical. I would argue we are already well beyond that point but the theoretical limitation remains. No sense in pretending it is not there.
It does not follow however that science cannot see the supernatural. The object of inquiry is 'everything' after all. Rather, science assumes that all things have natural causes, even things it can't currently explain. Attributing the currently unexplainable to the supernatural leads to a diminishing God. As science does extend itself, the supernatural is reduced.
There is no way to 'prove' that the supernatural doesn't exist until we can explain everything, it can only be an assumption. However, it is a very powerful assumption. So powerful than we have extended our scientific understanding to the very begining of the universe and are now contemplating how to go beyond.
Conversely, there is no way to 'prove' the existence of the supernatural.
However, I can prove the existence of the natural. And I can explain almost everything naturally. And I will explain more tomorrow as the enterprise extends. The domain of natural explanations only increases and the domain of supernatural explanations only decreases.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: The domain of natural explanations only increases and the domain of supernatural explanations only decreases.
This, too, is based on an (edit) assumption which isn't necessarily true... namely that a natural explanation precludes a supernatural one.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, dagonee, I'm running a fever of 102. Its the only reason I'm posting today. If I need to take a break so I can take a nap,I'm certainly going to do that.
Again, though, you are making assumptions about what exists, and determining the validity of an epistomology based off of that. You are assuming that there must be supernatural entities. I don't make that assumption. I make the assumption that everything that exists has an affect. As an addendum to that, I will grant that it is conceivable things exist that have no affect. My assumption is that things with no affect can be considered to "not exist" for any useful definition of the word "exist."
Science can handle anything that can be measured. Since any affect can be measured, science can handle anything with an affect. If it has no affect, then science can't handle it. But it also, for all useful definitions of the word exist, doesn't exist.
The problem with your substantive points, dagonee, is they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science. (paraphrase). You've even explicitly said this a couple times.
Since its not what I'm doing, your substantive points, well, aren't.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Natural explanations do not include the supernatural. Perhaps they do not preclude a possible supernatural explanation but they NEVER include the supernatural.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Science can handle anything that can be measured. Since any affect can be measured, science can handle anything with an affect. If it has no affect, then science can't handle it. But it also, for all useful definitions of the word exist, doesn't exist.
Ideas have an effect... maybe the greatest effect out of everything we perceive. Please describe your scientific method for measuring and quantifying them which is totally objective and rigorous.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because God wished it is probably not a very useful explanation however.
Not all explanations are equal and relevancy depends on the nature of the inquiry. If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never try to find out the probability of God's existence. It's pointless to me. If I could understand God, I don't think s/he'd be great enough to be worshiped.
Let's try to find the probability of YOU existing.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
Exactly. The two explanation are not exclusive, but deal with certain areas of inquiry.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Not exactly at all. The explanations are incompatible.
No, the explanations vary according to what you are trying to find out.
Regardless, however, they are both legitimate explanations and you would be foolish to disregard Dag's shouted "I hate you" and brandishing of his rock on the basis that "this explanation has nothing to do with how gravity works."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The are both legitimate explanations of different questions. They are not competing explanations for the same question.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a religion can be accepted as an epistemology, it can certainly 'handle' the supernatural. God did it.
Well, that's the thing. As people are using the word "handled" here, it seems to imply some level of understanding and/or predictive value. If there's actually some reliably predictive value to a religious epistemology, the scientific epistemology can indeed "handle" it by incorporating the predictive methods of religious epistemology. If there isn't, then nothing has in fact been "handled;" it's just been excused.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
However a good theory of gravity will preclude the explanation that God willed the stone to fall. Not preclude it in the sense that I could stop you arguing such despite all the evidence to the contrary. But preclude God's will in the sense that my natural explanation is complete without engaging the supernatual.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, which would make the natural explanation independent of the supernatural one. This is not the same thing as supplanting it, though.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with your substantive points, dagonee, is they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science. (paraphrase). You've even explicitly said this a couple times.
I flat out have not said this. I haven't implied it. I haven't even thought it.
quote:Since its not what I'm doing, your substantive points, well, aren't.
Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said.
Your original reason for disregarding my original statement has as a premise something to the effect "Any supernatural that affects the physical world can be handled by science."
This premise is not proven within your epistemology and is a statement about the nature of the supernatural. Your rejection of huge swaths of evidence concerning the supernatural is based on a conclusion about the nature of the supernatural, whether you want to admit that this is begging the question or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is exacly supplanting the supernatural one. I can expain the phenomenon naturally and that explanation is complete without the supernatural. Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation. And it never does.
I would be keen on any EVIDENCE of the supernatural much less huge swaths. Perhaps you could point to some for me other than personal testimony, which as you know, is extremely unreliable.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is exacly supplanting the supernatural one. I can expain the phenomenon naturally and that explanation is complete without the supernatural.
It does not supplant the supernatural one. They answer two different questions about the same phenomenon.
quote:Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation. And it never does.
That confidence cannot derive from any natural explanation.
quote:I would be keen on any EVIDENCE of the supernatural much less huge swaths. Perhaps you could point to some for me other than personal testimony, which as you know, is extremely unreliable.
What other evidence could there be for it? If the evidence is such that a purely naturalistic method of explaining things can evaluate it, then it's not a supernatural phenomenon.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation.
No you can't. See my note on miracles and why you can't study them scientifically.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
But if you're trying not to get hit on the head with rocks, you better understand both to some degree.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not agumentation, it is simply refutation. I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question. This will be more useful to our discussion. Adding yet a third question (how do I not get hit?) only obfuscates the matter further.
It seems you are arguing for a diminishing God, in other words, if we have natural explanations then the supernatural no longer applies. If the evidence for the supernatural is only testimonial, I am afraid it will not fare well.
Imagine that you have a dozen witnesses who support your case, but your opponent has DNA evidence to support his. Who do you figure is gonna prevail?
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said."
You haven't addressed anything I've said either, because you've started from an incorrect assumption about what I'm doing, and have systematically misrepresented what I have said.
"As I said above, you have based your view of the complexity of the question on your view of the outcome of the question. "
Dagonee, I have no idea how to interpret this statement from page three OTHER then that you think my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion. If you can clarify what you're saying here, maybe we can get somewhere.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not agumentation, it is simply refutation. I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question. This will be more useful to our discussion. Adding yet a third question (how do I not get hit?) only obfuscates the matter further.
No, it will be more useful to your discussion. You can go ahead and have that one by yourself if you want. My point in introducing the rock example is to demonstrate that insistence on only dealing with the one question - especially when that question is artificially limited to a question that can be answered by naturalist processes - means that only an incomplete picture of the world will emerge.
quote:It seems you are arguing for a diminishing God, in other words, if we have natural explanations then the supernatural no longer applies. If the evidence for the supernatural is only testimonial, I am afraid it will not fare well.
No, I'm not. You are. I am specifically saying that most things - and all things that actually matter - have more than one explanation and that each is relevant.
quote:Imagine that you have a dozen witnesses who support your case, but your opponent has DNA evidence to support his. Who do you figure is gonna prevail?
Let's ask OJ.
Beyond that, you are still making two unwarranted assumptions: that the witnesses contradict the DNA evidence, and that that DNA evidence (or an analog) is available for everything that happens.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question.
But the whole issue is that I don't believe it's the same question at all. It isn't to me.
It would also help if, after we reach an agreement, you didn't immediately assert something we don;t agree on and try to move on.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said."
You haven't addressed anything I've said either, because you've started from an incorrect assumption about what I'm doing, and have systematically misrepresented what I have said.
No, I haven't. I spent a two-screen post explaining my reasoning, and you still haven't even given a sign you read it. So, to make this really simple, tell me which of the following are false:
1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
2.) The statement "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science" makes assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural.
3.) Your conclusion depends on assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural.
quote:Dagonee, I have no idea how to interpret this statement from page three OTHER then that you think my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion. If you can clarify what you're saying here, maybe we can get somewhere.
You don't see the difference between "my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion" and "they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science.""
True.
"2.) The statement "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science" makes assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural."
A true statement, since we've limited it to supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
"3.) Your conclusion depends on assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural."
False, since my conclusion only examines a particular subset of the supernatural, i.e., those that affect the physical world
"You don't see the difference between "my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion" and "they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science"?"
Not the way you wrote it, no
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A true statement, since we've limited it to supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
No, it's not a true statement. I've already posited at least one such supernatural entity for which this is not true. Beyond that, it is the assumption that this statement is true which rests on a conclusion about the supernatural - specifically, that the supernatural is not of such a nature that it both affects the physical world and is not able to be handled by science.
If you don't use that as a premise, you cannot reach your conclusion.
quote:Not the way you wrote it, no
Hint: I bolded the part that's a big difference.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, bang your head against the wall because we didn't allow you to define the topic so your view is the only one that can be discussed. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think orlox is beating his head because, from the scientific side of the argument, it's very frustrating to deal with people who go from faith.
It always reminds me of when I would place 'power rangers' as a kid...whenever I 'shot' my friend with a 'lazer', he'd say "But I had my shield up" or "Your lazer doesn't work on me" or "I don't want to play any more".
Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the other side can be convinced. But I do hope to maintain a level af productive discourse. I bang my head at the level of argumentation, not the hopelessness of the task.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, I'm not. You are.
posted
Who's going from faith? Paul keeps insisting that I am because I am arguing form the position that there is a God. I am not. All I am saying is that if there *is* an invisble cat on that chair, all the video footage in the world isn't going to tell you a damned thing about it.
You may have other and perfectly valid reasons for discounting the testimony that there is an invisible cat there, but to say that there isn't an invisible cat there because it can't be seen doesn't even rise to begging the question, it's arguing from the presupposition that "seeing is believing" and refusing to acknowledge any other methodology.
No one here is saying "your laser doesn't work", we are saying "but we're playing baseball-- there's no lasers in baseball."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I've already posited at least one such supernatural entity for which this is not true"
Which makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions about science.
"Beyond that, it is the assumption that this statement is true which rests on a conclusion about the supernatural - specifically, that the supernatural is not of such a nature that it both affects the physical world and is not able to be handled by science.
If you don't use that as a premise, you cannot reach your conclusion."
And this gets back at the one line post I had where you said I wasn't responding to anything substantive you wrote:
I do not make assumptions about what exists BEFORE developing an epistomology. If one has a conclusion, a statement which is not yet developed cannot be used for a premise for that conclusion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I don't think that the other side can be convinced. But I do hope to maintain a level af productive discourse. I bang my head at the level of argumentation, not the hopelessness of the task.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, I'm not. You are.
Why don't you quote the rest of it where I explain why I am not arguing for a diminishing God: "I am specifically saying that most things - and all things that actually matter - have more than one explanation and that each is relevant."
quote:Which makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions about science.
No, it prevents science from limiting reality to what it can "handle."
quote:I do not make assumptions about what exists BEFORE developing an epistomology. If one has a conclusion, a statement which is not yet developed cannot be used for a premise for that conclusion.
Just because you've embedded your assumption deep into your preferred epistemology doesn't mean it's not there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
