quote:Originally posted by orlox: Apples and oranges.
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.
Unless the reason there is such thing as gravity is because it was God's will that the stone should fall.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Which almost always is a de facto statement about a state of hubris within ones' self.
Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
Actually, it's more accurately stated, "I don't think you are going to let anyone convince you to change your mind, no matter what they say."
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Then the cat doesn't seem to care if anyone believes in it or not.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Serious answer:
We don't go in assuming the cat is real. We go in thinking "there may or may not be a cat". Since no one but the cat could know how it would respond to being recorded, we try to record it. Video surveillance 24/7.
If the cat fails to appear, then I would suggest we look at the people who claim to have seen it. What do they have in common? Everything from how they were raised to medical profiles to CAT scans to personality testing.
Maybe we find that they all have something in common. Maybe not. But that's how science would "handle" it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Which almost always is a de facto statement about a state of hubris within ones' self.
Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
Actually, it's more accurately stated, "I don't think you are going to let anyone convince you to change your mind, no matter what they say."
quote:Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
I'm not sure how there is any significant difference in the two statements. In yours you put more emphasis on the idea of nobody being able to change your mind. In mine the emphasis is on the disdain between the two parties making persuasion impossible. They both suggest that a person is too prideful to acknowledge the merit in other people's arguments.
I've found there are many more people willing to let certain kinds of people persuade them to change their minds, and very few people who universally do not allow foreign concepts to influence their beliefs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: We don't go in assuming the cat is real.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WE ARE NOT ASSUMING THE CAT IS REAL.
Edit to add:
We are giving examples of a Cat that isn't detectable.
I did this along time ago with Mercy and no one has bothered to answer that one. Tom has, I think, in the past done so.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Well, I'm on my journey from living my entire life as a Catholic to opening my mind and considering that what I was taught might be wrong.
So, I think I fall into the first group, and not the second.
So you would not change your mind no matter what anybody says?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Just because you've embedded your assumption deep into your preferred epistemology doesn't mean it's not there."
I really can't be polite about this, dagonee, so yeah, its useless to continue this discussion.
Fine. The fact that this is something to be impolite about is a good indication you have no intention of discussing this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I've found there are many more people willing to let certain kinds of people persuade them to change their minds, and very few people who universally do not allow foreign concepts to influence their beliefs."
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science.""
True.
From the very beginning, you've assumed that many types of supernatural entities don't exist. This is how you are begging the question.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: We don't go in assuming the cat is real.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WE ARE NOT ASSUMING THE CAT IS REAL.
Edit to add:
We are giving examples of a Cat that isn't detectable.
I did this along time ago with Mercy and no one has bothered to answer that one. Tom has, I think, in the past done so.
I'm not saying you necessarily are, Jim-me. I'm just saying that, to study something scientifically, we have to say "maybe there's a cat and maybe there isn't".
Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"From the very beginning, you've assumed that many types of supernatural entities don't exist. This is how you are begging the question."
Its not an assumption. Its a result of application of epistomology.
One should not assume something exists, and then figure out how to prove that it does. One should figure out what tools to use to determine what exists, and then apply those tools. When one does that, its not an assumption to say "X is not shown to exist by our tools, therefore it either does not exist, or doesn't matter."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
But the cat described is detectable; it's just that it is only detectable on its own schedule and whim, not ours.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
I wouldn't say that's true. Because it gives man the quality of omniscience. All that exists can be perceived. I'm not willing to make such a sweeping judgment on all that exists.
Especially since there are many things previously invisible to mankind, that now are visible because of improved reasoning and technology. We shouldn't ignore that which we cannot perceive as many things dramatically influence us independent of our regard for them.
edit: So you don't concede that a force that is undetectable except under ITS terms defies the scientific method?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A cat that isn't detecable by the methods you are using.
You not only have to say "maybe there's a cat and maybe there isn't" but "based on the description of the cat we are looking for, is this method going to show the cat.
Tom took my meaning a little too literally. My analogy was this: looking for God with scientific method is like looking for invisible cat with video equipment.
As Tom said, there are other ways to tell a cat is there... or disprove it. Likewise there are other ways to make deductions about God. They may not be as accurate as scientific method nor do they lead to unambiguous results... just as placing microphones around the room to attempt to hear the invisible cat might produce noises that may or may not be a cat... or a dog... or background noise... or something from the next room...
but simply saying "I can't put Him in a bottle and make him dance on command, therefore there is no God" is, as Paul orignially said, throwing out a bunch of information from the get-go.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Fine. The fact that this is something to be impolite about is a good indication you have no intention of discussing this."
What I would be impolite about is your refusal to pay attention to what I'm writing. \
I have - far more than you have paid attention to mine.
You have taken as a postulate that science can handle all things that affect the physical world.
This must have, as a corollary, that supernatural things that affect the physical world can be handled by science. You have excluded from existence all things that can affect the physical world but can't be handled by science.
You've admitted each piece of this. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this assumption is necessary for your conclusion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe we find that they all have something in common. Maybe not. But that's how science would "handle" it.
And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This must have, as a corollary, that supernatural things that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
No, you don't, because now you are talking about specific sorts of things.
If you don't speculate on what types of things exist or don't exist until you have an epistomology in place, then you do not have a corollary, while developing that epistomology, any type of statement about things that exist.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world."
So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
He is showing how science cannot verify the truth or falsehood of certain types of supernatural entities.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world."
So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
What the hell are you doing? We are talking about whether something exists. I've postulated something that, if it exists, cannot be detected by science and yet affects the physical world. The purpose of this - which should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith - is to demonstrate that IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE. Therefore, science cannot detect the set of all things UNLESS ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THAT NO THINGS IT CAN'T DETECT EXIST.
That would be the conclusion and the premise.
This is not hard. You know what I'm saying. Cut the crap.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: So you don't concede that a force that is undetectable except under ITS terms defies the scientific method?
Show me that the force does something. Because, if you can't...is it really a force?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" The purpose of this - which should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith - is to demonstrate that IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE"
The problem is, and it should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith, is that this cat can be detected by physical means. As such, can be handled by science. Since the cat eats a treat, if the treat is not in the room or in the person's body after the treat has been eaten, something was in the room.
We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE. Therefore, science cannot detect the set of all things UNLESS ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THAT NO THINGS IT CAN'T DETECT EXIST.
Bold mine.
If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing? (Which doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doing it as well.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force.
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing?
No, it's not the same. Whether the cat exists or not, Dagonee is correct that science cannot determine that fact.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the scientific way to deal with Dag's cat would be to classify it as a mental phenomenon in those who perceive it. (In some sense, of course, all things are 'mental phenomena', it's just that some are fairly commonly agreed on.) Then one could decide whether it was a harmful sort of thing, to be cured, a good one, to be emulated, or a neutral one, to be ignored. Now, to turn the question around, just what is the difference between this cat and one that exists only in the minds of the perceivers?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force.
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing?
No, it's not the same. Whether the cat exists or not, Dagonee is correct that science cannot determine that fact.
In that case, fine. You can't prove a negative.
I would say that it is up to the believers in the cat to prove its existence. If they can't, then said cat doesn't really matter.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
No, I'm not, because I haven't said the cat exists. Do you see the word "IF" at the beginning of that?
Paul started discussion this by saying that the opinion of every theist should be discounted from the determination of the complexity of the issue because they're not using a valid epistemology. I responded that his epistemology is invalid for the object whose existence we are discussing.
The whole point is that we are talking about things that exist and determining if an epistemology can detect them. For Paul to say "If my epistemology can't detect them then it doesn't exist" is begging the question. This is precisely the situation for which "begging the question" was coined.
quote:The problem is, and it should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith, is that this cat can be detected by physical means. As such, can be handled by science. Since the cat eats a treat, if the treat is not in the room or in the person's body after the treat has been eaten, something was in the room.
We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
The cat leaves no detectable traces after it leaves. The witness remembers the cat, the treat is gone, and that's it. The cat will not appear if anyone has inventoried the treats other than the witness. You have nothing but the testimony of the person and a lie detector result that says the witness believes his testimony.
How do YOU scientifically determine if the cat exists in that situation? You can't. The witness can use his senses. But you can't use yours to determine anything except "this person is not lying."
We're left with only testimony.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force."
Detecting forces is EASY.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force."
Detecting forces is EASY.
Not when the force never manifests when detecting equipment is around.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, thinking about it, the cat does give us several indirect avenues of approach. For one thing, it is never seen in the presence of video equipment, right? So, here's an experiment. We are trying to distinguish between the hypotheses "The cat is a hallucination" and "the cat is real but extremely, incredibly smart". First, establish how often the perceivers see the cat. Then, take four groups of perceivers, and have them record cat sightings for some time large enough that, given the baseline rate, you expect each group to have quite a few sightings. The groups are thus:
1. Control. Nothing special. 2. This group are being recorded by video, and know it. 3. This group think they are being recorded, but in fact they aren't. 4. This group is being recorded, but believe they aren't.
Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1 and 3, but not 2 or 4. Voila, we have a handle.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Let's flip it Dag.
You can come up with any number of reasons why we can't prove the cat exists or doesn't. Fine.
Now, prove to me it's real. Because, if this were a real world case, if you couldn't prove that to me I really wouldn't care about it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As dagonee limits the cat in more and more ways so as to be indeterminate through science, it becomes less and less relevent, because it has less and less effect.
The treat is gone. Its also not in the room. Nor in the person who went in the room. Nor anywhere the person can get the treat. So, after enough attempts, we know that something is consuming the treat in some fashion.
The cat is know starting to be within the realm of science, so it can't eat the treat. So it has less affect on the world.
Eventually, this cat will have no affect on the world, as we apply more and more scientific tests and methodologies, and my statement that it either does not exist or has no affect on the world stands.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The treat is gone. Its also not in the room. Nor in the person who went in the room. Nor anywhere the person can get the treat. So, after enough attempts, we know that something is consuming the treat in some fashion.
Except that no one except the witness can confirm the treat was ever there. So "we" don't know anything of the sort - only the witness does.
quote:Eventually, this cat will have no affect on the world, as we apply more and more scientific tests and methodologies, and my statement that it either does not exist or has no affect on the world stands.
If one accepts a certain assumption.
The cat is simply a response to Tom's analogy. There are an infinite number of such entities possible - some with enormous physical effects that can be detected. What we couldn't detect by scientific methods is that a supernatural entity is causing those events.
Suppose there's a cosmic dice game on another plane of existence. If someone rolls snake eyes, then the most likely place on the earth for a hurricane to form at that moment will form one. The correlation is 100%.
Yet we can't detect the dice game. If you want to define that as not "mattering" then fine. But that is a singularly useless definition of "matters."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Which is still another handle on the cat! We have now affected it by physical means: To wit, the setup of the experiment has changed how it behaves. That puts it in the realm of science.
Touching your hurricane example, certainly the hurricane matters, but I don't see how the dice game is at all important. There's nothing we can do to affect it, even if we know about it, so why bother to clutter up your conceptual space with that knowledge, even if it is true?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's nothing we can do to affect it, even if we know about it, so why bother to clutter up your conceptual space with that knowledge, even if it is true?
So we're not talking true, we're talking useful?
OK, but that's a very different thing to be discussing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think the non-theists have been talking useful all along. But yes, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. In any case, these examples of true but undetectable things do not really correspond to religious epistemology either; after all, you do not claim your god is undetectable, only that it is undetectable by science. Incidentally, how would your epistemology deal with the cosmic dice game?
And by the way, were you conceding my point about the cat, or merely ignoring it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not discussing it any more since we are not discussing the same topic. It has not been conceded, but rendered irrelevant by this sudden change of rules.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
