Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheist Elite College.
Options
Comments
-
Your posts are becoming more and more fractured. And you are omitting key segments of my post that illustrate just how untenable your position is.Mark Hamill wrote: »When I said "science doesn't allow" what I mean is "science doesn't allow for". Evidence-less conclusions are rejected out of hand by science.
Again, you are being far too vague, even for an internet discussion. Scientists and peer-review bodies reject evidence-less conclusions. Funding bodies reject untestable, supernatural proposals. But "Science" says absolutely nothing about personal beliefs you may hold about the ultimate metaphysical nature of existence.Only if you assume the claim is true. Unless you are starting from the assumption that the phenomena is supernatural, you can alter the claim to one (or several) falsifiable and test for those (ie you eliminate testable possibilities). Otherwise you are saying that any scientific examination we are currently undertaking must be ceased if someone comes along and makes the claim that the phenomena is actually supernatural in nature.
What scientific examination? We have already established that it cannot be examined. Your "examination" amounted to nothing other than interviewing the witness and deciding whether or not you believe him based on his mental health. We are not talking about some gap in scientific knowledge.No, because as I've said, scientifically, "magical" is indistinguishable from "divine".
And as I've said, they are not indistinguishable. I had a magic kit when I was 10. I did not have a divine kit when I was 10. Similarly, Harry Potter is not divine.Are they not rejecting the overall finding that everything we associate with the spirit, or the consciousness, is actually controlled and defined by the logical brain?
They are accepting the finding that everything we associate with consciousness is controlled and defined by the brain. They reject that everything we associate with the spirit is defined by the brain. But no science paper or research has concluded that, because spirit is not defined in any testable way.You think that by teaching someone any kind of science that you aren't telling them to reject unscientific beliefs? If you teach someone plate tectonics, are you not teaching them to reject the expanding earth hypothesis?
Exactly. You are presenting the science, without any philosophical overtones about what they should ultimately believe. I don't care if someone wants to believe an expanding earth hypothesis. What I do care about is if a) They try to present the expanding earth hypothesis as scientifically established, or b) try to present science as some philosophical set of rules about the metaphysical universe. A perfectly reasonable theist would reject the expanding earth hypothesis. You could argue that they are not being reasonable by rejecting ineffable claims, but you couldn't argue that they are hypocrites or that the must accept scientism if they accept science due to them being "the same".It would tell you what physical evidence there is for their claims.
So?Science is the method, not the results.
For the purposes of this thread, science has incorporated both the method and the results, in a similar manner to the use of the word in the phrase "science book" or "science museum". Do you actually have a point, or are you just being pedantic?But that method requires you to accept that the universe is consistent and measurable. It wouldn't work otherwise (if we cant measure, we cant test or model; if the universe isn't consistent, then results have no reliable reproducibility and are therefore useless for prediction). It would seem to me that a method that requires you to accept that the universe is consistent and measurable and a philosophy that requires you to accept that the universe is consistent and measurable amount to the same thing.
It doesn't require that we assume the universe is entirely measurable and consistent. To use your counting analogy: I don't have to assume the real numbers are countable if I am counting the elements of some subset, like the natural numbers.Thats not exactly right, we can only say the theist accepts the results if they dont reject any theory or set of data that has been established by the scientific method. If they believe that some things in the universe are outside the remit of science, then, by believing that the universe is not entirely consistent and/or measurable, they are rejecting science.
This is a non-sequitur. How are they rejecting "any theory or set of data that has been established by the scientific method" if they don't believe all of the universe is entirely consistent. I don't believe the universe is necessarily entirely consistent.Other way around makes more sense.
Really? You cannot recognise the difference between the two pages? How they are describing two different things? That is unreal. Do you also feel the same about the "Military" and "Militarism" wikipedia pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism0 -
Your posts are becoming more and more fractured. And you are omitting key segments of my post that illustrate just how untenable your position is.
I left out the parts where I felt I would repeat myself. If I missed anything important, then point it out and I respond to it.Again, you are being far too vague, even for an internet discussion. Scientists and peer-review bodies reject evidence-less conclusions. Funding bodies reject untestable, supernatural proposals. But "Science" says absolutely nothing about personal beliefs you may hold about the ultimate metaphysical nature of existence.
Science, as a method, rejects evidence-less conclusions, clear enough for you?What scientific examination? We have already established that it cannot be examined. Your "examination" amounted to nothing other than interviewing the witness and deciding whether or not you believe him based on his mental health. We are not talking about some gap in scientific knowledge.
Because there isn't a gap in the scientific knowledge. everything about the claim can be explained by natural means and the only issue is if you start with the assumption that something supernatural did happen and therefore science would be of no use to investigate. Like I said, if what you claimed was accurate, then we would have to cease any current scientific testing (or disregard any already determined scientific results) if someone put the claim in such a way that it involves a supernatural entity.And as I've said, they are not indistinguishable. I had a magic kit when I was 10. I did not have a divine kit when I was 10. Similarly, Harry Potter is not divine.
From the point of view of the scientific method, they are.They are accepting the finding that everything we associate with consciousness is controlled and defined by the brain. They reject that everything we associate with the spirit is defined by the brain. But no science paper or research has concluded that, because spirit is not defined in any testable way.
And something that is not defined in any testable way is, scientifically, indistinguishable from not existing. If you cant even define what you are believing in, then how can you say you even believe in it?Exactly. You are presenting the science, without any philosophical overtones about what they should ultimately believe. I don't care if someone wants to believe an expanding earth hypothesis. What I do care about is if a) They try to present the expanding earth hypothesis as scientifically established, or b) try to present science as some philosophical set of rules about the metaphysical universe. A perfectly reasonable theist would reject the expanding earth hypothesis. You could argue that they are not being reasonable by rejecting ineffable claims, but you couldn't argue that they are hypocrites or that the must accept scientism if they accept science due to them being "the same".
If you teach someone plate tectonics, tell them how it accounts for the movements of the continents, the rise of mountains and earthquakes, then you are (implicitly, at least) teaching them to reject counter arguments (on the basis that plate tectonic theory has the most evidence). I dont understand how someone could present some aspect of science to group and not accept them to accept it and reject other counter arguments (or at least reject it scientifically).So?
So then we would know what physical evidence there is for their claims. If there is none, then their claims is pretty unlikely to have happened.For the purposes of this thread, science has incorporated both the method and the results, in a similar manner to the use of the word in the phrase "science book" or "science museum". Do you actually have a point, or are you just being pedantic?
I have always been presenting science as the method, as that is what I understand science to be, a method.It doesn't require that we assume the universe is entirely measurable and consistent. To use your counting analogy: I don't have to assume the real numbers are countable if I am counting the elements of some subset, like the natural numbers.
But if we cant measure, we cant test or model and if the universe isn't consistent, then results have no reliable reproducibility and are therefore useless for prediction. What do you think science requires of us?This is a non-sequitur. How are they rejecting "any theory or set of data that has been established by the scientific method" if they don't believe all of the universe is entirely consistent.
Thats not what I said. I said that if they accept the theories or data sets (ie the results), then all you can say is that they accept the results. if they believe that the universe is not entirely consistent and measurable, then they are rejecting science (or at least my understanding of science, as you seem to differ on this)I don't believe the universe is necessarily entirely consistent.
In what way?Really? You cannot recognise the difference between the two pages? How they are describing two different things? That is unreal.
I can see that the two pages are physically different, but I dont see a difference between the two terms, when you take them at their definition.Do you also feel the same about the "Military" and "Militarism" wikipedia pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism
Seeing as science is a method and military is an organisation, I wouldn't see it as the same situation.0 -
I forget which side I'm rooting for at this stage.0
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Science, as a method, rejects evidence-less conclusions, clear enough for you?
No. Science, as a method, is a system of investigation. All it can do is establish or falsify hypotheses. If my hypothesis predicts evidence that is not found, then my hypothesis is falsified. If my hypotheses cannot be established or falsified, then it will be rejected by scientific journals as "not even wrong". It says nothing about personal beliefs I might hold.Because there isn't a gap in the scientific knowledge. everything about the claim can be explained by natural means and the only issue is if you start with the assumption that something supernatural did happen and therefore science would be of no use to investigate. Like I said, if what you claimed was accurate, then we would have to cease any current scientific testing (or disregard any already determined scientific results) if someone put the claim in such a way that it involves a supernatural entity.
Again, you are arguing for scientism/naturalism, as opposed to arguing that scientism and science are identical things, even though you yourself have accepted that science is a method. Do you believe scientism is a method?From the point of view of the scientific method, they are.
Methods do not have points of view.And something that is not defined in any testable way is, scientifically, indistinguishable from not existing. If you cant even define what you are believing in, then how can you say you even believe in it?
It is empiricism which says this. Science is an empirical means of investigation, but science is not empiricism.If you teach someone plate tectonics, tell them how it accounts for the movements of the continents, the rise of mountains and earthquakes, then you are (implicitly, at least) teaching them to reject counter arguments (on the basis that plate tectonic theory has the most evidence). I dont understand how someone could present some aspect of science to group and not accept them to accept it and reject other counter arguments (or at least reject it scientifically).
I would expect them to, insofar as I would wager that most people would accept it, even if I don't particularly care either way. Equally, I find it unreasonable to believe in the supernatural. But this debate is not about how reasonable it is to believe in things without evidence. It is about whether or not science and scientism are the same thing.So then we would know what physical evidence there is for their claims. If there is none, then their claims is pretty unlikely to have happened.
*shrug* if you say so. What does this have to do with science being the same as scientism?I have always been presenting science as the method, as that is what I understand science to be, a method.
You have been presenting science as not only a method, but a philosophical position which says the method is the best, most authoritative method we have. Whether or not you believe this is the case, science is not such a philosophical position.But if we cant measure, we cant test or model and if the universe isn't consistent, then results have no reliable reproducibility and are therefore useless for prediction. What do you think science requires of us?
Methodological naturalism. Just because someone believes it is possible that God might tamper with experiments does not mean they can't apply a system of investigation under the assumption that God won't.Thats not what I said. I said that if they accept the theories or data sets (ie the results), then all you can say is that they accept the results. if they believe that the universe is not entirely consistent and measurable, then they are rejecting science (or at least my understanding of science, as you seem to differ on this)
Then I am rejecting science?In what way?
The universe is not obliged to appear consistent or understandable to our primate minds, or any mind of arbitrary intelligence. The universe may be queerer than any being can suppose.I can see that the two pages are physically different, but I dont see a difference between the two terms, when you take them at their definition.
So you believe the pages are wrong because they are defining them differently?Seeing as science is a method and military is an organisation, I wouldn't see it as the same situation.
That is not an important distinction, but for the sake of argument, consider Military tactics and Militarism then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics
The difference is one is a method, and the other is an opinion about the scope of the method. It really is a simple matter.0 -
Beaten by 30 seconds!!!Mark Hamill wrote: »
Yes but the claim being investigated is that a witness heard a voice while in the presence of a burning bush (you ignore the speculative bias added by the witness and just look at the bare bones claim). At this stage, it would be premature to declare that it was supernatural.
Honestly, I have to wonder... You claimed that horticulture would
offer us some inkling of evidence as to whether a burning bush spoke
or not. Now, remember, this was your evidence. Quite frankly it is
more ludicrous to assume that a burning bush spoke naturally than
the claim that a burning bush spoke through the supreme magician.
For a bush to magically start speaking it would violate our current
knowledge of biology so radically that we'd claim it was supernatural.
It is literally, literally, impossible for a bush to start speaking of it's own
accord or even by any possible genetic mutation, there is absolutely
no way that the exact sequence of mutations would take place in one
sole piece of shrubbery to allow it to begin speaking, let alone only to one
person for one moment or, at least, only allowing it to speak when doused
in flames. So again, this piece of 'evidence' you offered up to us was
completely meaningless. Under what scenario horticulture could offer us
up some piece of evidence - let alone the overwhelming evidence you
would love to lead us to believe - is simply beyond me. Furthermore,
I am quite certain it's totally beyond you too because you've had plenty
of time to clarify to us what you meant & have, again, given us vague
nods to the authority of this 'evidence'.
If it's not clear - I just analyzed the only possible use which your evidence
could have in an argument like this because the way in which you used
this as evidence just has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
Nobody has claimed a bush spoke naturally, horticulture has nothing to
say about a bush that speaks non-naturally. Your evidence applied to the
case of a bush speaking naturally. Honestly I just don't know how to say
this in another way, it's just so obvious, so elementary, so black & white.
Either the bush spoke through god or it didn't speak, I don't see any other
possibilities. The key fact here is that horticulture has absolutely nothing
to do with either scenario so whatever the case may be your horticultural
evidence is totally irrelevant.
Now, I have not prematurely decided anything, you have just totally
ignored the point I was making & responded by accusing me of assuming
X. I'll repeat what I said, I said that the claim being put forth is that a
supernatural entity, in the form of a bush, spoke to humanity. Your
evidence, as I already said, is only evidence against the claim that a
bush started speaking naturally - a claim so ludicrously tautologically
false that we don't even need to bring in horticulture to say this is
ridiculous. If we assume that the bush spoke naturally, which I think is
going to be your fallback position here, I think this conversation is over,
you are trolling if you are going to take seriously the possibility that the
bush spoke naturally & even bother to investigate such nonsense. I see
absolutely no other reason why horticulture has anything to do with
this claim & am still waiting for you to make up an excuse because the
initial way you used your evidence is completely meaningless, applies to a
totally different argument...Mark Hamill wrote: »Of course it has use. We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak. We dont just stop there however. We can compare the event to people hallucinated voices and see if its possible if the witness, in this case, was hallucinating.
You forget the key word here, We can deduce that the bush itself didn't
speak naturally. That is the extent to which your evidence reaches. I'm
not even considering whether a person was hallucinating or not, that
thought hasn't occurred to me yet, I'm just focusing on your evidence
of horticulture & how it applies. Not only have you not made a serious
case for evidence via horticulture in any way but you don't even know
the limitations evidence such as this would have. Horticulture has nothing
to say about supernatural entities forcing a bush to speak. Unless the
study has been conducted in Scientistic American I must have missed it.
Just to repeat my propaganda, you claimed that horticulture would be
evidence, I've told you that your evidence is evidence for a different
argument, nobody is arguing whether a bush spoke naturally, nobody
is entertaining such nonsense (let alone using it to infer things about a persons psychology).Mark Hamill wrote: »With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself,
Nobody claimed it did...Mark Hamill wrote: »that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating the entire experience. A simple scientific explanation is given for all parts of the claim, its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't apt.
You may very well be right about the witness hallucinating. However
horticulture isn't going to let us know the answer to this question one
way or the other :pac:Mark Hamill wrote: »We need only test a representative sample of a population in order to make inferences about the whole population. Statistics would be pretty useless if we had to test each and every single unit of a population to describe how any unit of a population will react in a specific environment.
Oh no... Honestly not going to get into this one, just shocking that you'd
make an argument like this here though...Mark Hamill wrote: »It takes nativity to assume that just because something is claimed to be supernatural that it is, even if its 2000 years ago. We dont know something is supernatural is not until we test it, do we? So how can approach any situation, before even testing it, and assume its untestable?
You're right, it does take nativity to assume that just because something
is claimed to be supernatural that it is, even if its 2000 years ago. I would
go ahead & say it takes ideology as well. I agree, we don't know if
something is supernatural unless we test it. We're still waiting for even
a tap, an inkling, a hint, a morsel of a method of scientifically studying
this claim from you, despite your confident claims that you've already
given us this evidence in the form of horticulture & the psychology of an
individual you have learned from an understanding of large sample-space
statistics. When you have something better than these horrendously
flawed pieces of 'evidence', let us know, until then this is just scientistic
armchair science.Mark Hamill wrote: »Yes, because it suited it them (ie didn't conflict with their ego), or because they had no other choice (the science was too useful).
I suppose this is also a scientific claim you're making :pac: I'm sure you
know all about the psychology of all these people via your psychological
sample space statistics in order to make broad generalizations such as
the one you've just made. With vague references to horticulture &
statistics being taken seriously it's no wonder a person would think that
they have found the ultimate mode of reality - just point the magic
wand of scientism at something & scream COGITO!, we now understand
it & all we must do is hint to some, preferably relevant, study in order to
justify ourselves :cool: Quite a seductive way of living I'll admit.Mark Hamill wrote: »You have made a logical error. You have assumed that because the event is claimed to have been supernatural, and because we are unable to examine it directly, that we must assume it was supernatural and therefore science would have been useless to examine it.
I beg you, please go back to the part of my post that you responded to
& make it explicitly clear how I have forced us to assume this is
supernatural just because we can't test it. You are going to have to
be more explicit than handwavey references to my last post to argue
your case here because, unlike the burning bush, we actually have
evidence to test the claim. So please make it explicit how I have
forced us to assume this was supernatural.
If you actually read what I posted you'll see I said that "The claim that a
burning bush was speaking over 2000 years ago due to be a supernatural
agent is one that we'll never be able to test". I made a typo & left out
an "&", but my typo does not obscure what I meant. If you include it
you'll see I then said that this "is not something that we can say
anything scientific about", the point being that because we don't have
any evidence we can't say anything scientific about it. In no way, no
shape or form have I forced us to assume a supernatural quality to this
situation, even without the "&". Everything we can say is guesswork &
a product of our biases, something you've amply demonstrated thus far.0 -
Advertisement
-
No. Science, as a method, is a system of investigation. All it can do is establish or falsify hypotheses. If my hypothesis predicts evidence that is not found, then my hypothesis is falsified. If my hypotheses cannot be established or falsified, then it will be rejected by scientific journals as "not even wrong". It says nothing about personal beliefs I might hold.
In what way does the bit in bold not imply that the scientific method rejects evidence-less conclusions?Do you believe scientism is a method?
Seeing as I have said that I believe science and scientism amount to the same thing, the answer is obviously yes.Methods do not have points of view.
Methods have criteria under which you examine and arrange evidence, so yes they do.It is empiricism which says this. Science is an empirical means of investigation, but science is not empiricism.
I dont see what this has to do with what I said? If science is an empirical means of investigation then it also requires testability. If you cant define what you believe in, then how can you say you believe in something?I would expect them to, insofar as I would wager that most people would accept it, even if I don't particularly care either way. Equally, I find it unreasonable to believe in the supernatural. But this debate is not about how reasonable it is to believe in things without evidence. It is about whether or not science and scientism are the same thing.
This also seems to miss the point. Anytime you present some scientifically established theory to someone, you are, implicitly if not explicitly, directing them to reject counter hypotheses. Thus you are using science to ultimately tell them what to believe (at least in the case of plate tectonics).*shrug* if you say so. What does this have to do with science being the same as scientism?
This was in response to to the tangent about examining a supernatural claim.You have been presenting science as not only a method, but a philosophical position which says the method is the best, most authoritative method we have. Whether or not you believe this is the case, science is not such a philosophical position.
Science requires the empirical assumptions that the universe is measurable and consistent. Why would you accept science (with its universe encompassing starting assumptions) if you believed that there was some other non scientific method better at understanding the universe, or part thereof? If you can measure and reproduce everything in the universe, then you understand everything in the universe. If you believe that you cant do this for everything, then you dont accept the basic scientific starting assumptions, and therefore dont wholly accept science.Methodological naturalism. Just because someone believes it is possible that God might tamper with experiments does not mean they can't apply a system of investigation under the assumption that God won't.
And then assume god has interfered when they are unable to experiment on something? Either god interferes or he doesn't. To assume that he stops at the (ever changing) limit of our ability to test the universe is nonsensical.Then I am rejecting science?
Yes (although I strongly assert this has no relevance on competence).The universe is not obliged to appear consistent or understandable to our primate minds, or any mind of arbitrary intelligence. The universe may be queerer than any being can suppose.
Appearing to be consistent and measurable to us, and being ultimately consistent and measurable are two different things. I dont assume that just because (imo) the universe is ultimately consistent and measurable that humanity will ever necessarily understand it.So you believe the pages are wrong because they are defining them differently?
I believe the scientism page is wrong. Accepting scientism is, imo, the same as accepting the logic to the scientific method, a distinction is moot.The difference is one is a method, and the other is an opinion about the scope of the method. It really is a simple matter.
Science starts with the assumption that the universe is consistent and measurable, military tactics start with the assumption that you are heading for conflict, so not exactly comparing like with like.0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »You claimed that horticulture would offer us some inkling of evidence as to whether a burning bush spoke or not.
....
I am quite certain it's totally beyond you too because you've had plenty of time to clarify to us what you meant & have, again, given us vague nods to the authority of this 'evidence'.
I dont understand your issue here? Horticulture is only piece of evidence (I've mentioned others), and in this case we use it to eliminate a possibility (something which you yourself did, when you declare a naturally talking bush to contradict our understanding of biology). I never said using these pieces of evidence would take very long, or that they wouldn't be used to eliminate possibilities.sponsoredwalk wrote: »The key fact here is that horticulture has absolutely nothing to do with either scenario so whatever the case may be your horticultural evidence is totally irrelevant.
I mentioned other pieces of evidence, above horticulture (which at least eliminated a possibility). Read my posts fully.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Now, I have not prematurely decided anything,
Actually, yes you have. You have ignored where I already said "Of course it [horticulture] has use. We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak. We dont just stop there however." and, ignored the other evidence I gave (the possibility of the voice coming from another source, the possibility the witness was a liar or insane) and for some reason latched onto horticulture with some elongated rant that was actually using horticulture in order to declare the use of horticulture as evidence as ludicrous ("For a bush to magically start speaking it would violate our current knowledge of biology so radically that we'd claim it was supernatural.").sponsoredwalk wrote: »You may very well be right about the witness hallucinating. However horticulture isn't going to let us know the answer to this question one way or the other :pac:sponsoredwalk wrote: »I suppose this is also a scientific claim you're making :pac:
Its an observation (and a generalisation, admittedly), but I would have thought that it was obvious. When unencumbered by requirements of evidence and reproducibility, people rarely believe in things that dont ultimately suit their world view.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I beg you, please go back to the part of my post that you responded to & make it explicitly clear how I have forced us to assume this is
supernatural just because we can't test it. You are going to have to be more explicit than handwavey references to my last post to argue
your case here because, unlike the burning bush, we actually have evidence to test the claim. So please make it explicit how I have forced us to assume this was supernatural.
I said "Do you think each and every single phenomena, from a burning bush to how I managed to stub my toe on my bed this morning, needs to be investigated and published in a journal or book? We would never get anywhere if we couldn't take what we have obtained from investigations in the past and apply them to claimed events." , you responded with "These are all natural events, we know how to deal with natural events. The claim that a burning bush was speaking over 2000 years ago due to be a supernatural agent is one that we'll never be able to test is not something that we can say anything scientific about".
You countered my point that we can use previous studies and apply them to newly claimed events, by saying that these events (each and every phenomena ) are natural, implying that the 2000 year old claim was of a non-natural event. You may not have meant that, but you wrote it.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Everything we can say is guesswork & a product of our biases, something you've amply demonstrated thus far.
Its not guesswork. Everything about the claim can be accounted for naturally. Someone tricked the witness somehow, he was lying or insane. Unless someone brings in more evidence, any of these three possibilities are strong contenders. And thats how all scientific examinations go. We accumulate and examine evidence, make predictions and determine which of our hypotheses best satisfy the evidence. If new evidence comes along, we make new models and examinations. I'm waiting for new evidence.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »In what way does the bit in bold not imply that the scientific method rejects evidence-less conclusions?
The story of the burning bush does not predict any evidence.Methods have criteria under which you examine and arrange evidence, so yes they do.
Again, I find it hard to believe you cannot see the distinction. A Method requires a specific kind of approach (methodological assumptions). It does not require a philosophy or opinion about the ultimate nature of reality.I dont see what this has to do with what I said? If science is an empirical means of investigation then it also requires testability. If you cant define what you believe in, then how can you say you believe in something?
I suspect you are omitting your previous choice of words in a deliberate attempt to stifle the discussion. You said "not defined in any testable way". You did not say "defined in any way". Theists don't define God in any testable way, but they still define, at the very least, a relationship mankind can have with God. So they do define what they believe in. Empiricism, as an epistemological position, says you should not believe in things you cannot directly experience through the sense. Science does not say this because science is a method.This also seems to miss the point. Anytime you present some scientifically established theory to someone, you are, implicitly if not explicitly, directing them to reject counter hypotheses. Thus you are using science to ultimately tell them what to believe (at least in the case of plate tectonics).
No I am not. All I can do is argue that it is scientifically established. Any truth value they want to infer doesn't interest me in the slightest. If they want to believe it was all a collective dream, or implanted memory then so be it.Science requires the empirical assumptions that the universe is measurable and consistent. Why would you accept science (with its universe encompassing starting assumptions) if you believed that there was some other non scientific method better at understanding the universe, or part thereof? If you can measure and reproduce everything in the universe, then you understand everything in the universe. If you believe that you cant do this for everything, then you dont accept the basic scientific starting assumptions, and therefore dont wholly accept science.
Again (can I ask why I need to keep telling you this?) you are arguing in favour of scientism/naturalism, but you are not arguing that science and scientism are the same. Can you distinguish the difference between the lines of argument: "Science and scientism are equivalent" and "It is dissonant to accept science but to not hold the view of scientism."?And then assume god has interfered when they are unable to experiment on something? Either god interferes or he doesn't. To assume that he stops at the (ever changing) limit of our ability to test the universe is nonsensical.
Reasonable theists do not assume God has interfered when they are unable to experiment on something. If the only way you can make your point is by repeatedly introducing straw-men then your point is not worth making.Yes (although I strongly assert this has no relevance on competence).
Heh, this is a first. I have never been accused of rejecting science before. I hope it is evident to anyone reading this how silly the accusation is.Appearing to be consistent and measurable to us, and being ultimately consistent and measurable are two different things. I dont assume that just because (imo) the universe is ultimately consistent and measurable that humanity will ever necessarily understand it.
I did not simply say humanity. I said any being of arbitrary intelligence. E.g. The universe is not obliged to be understandable to any being, no matter how intelligent they are. If something is inherently incomprehensible, then science cannot be applied to it. But (and this is the distinction you refuse to acknowledge), this does not mean I can't apply the scientific method to phenomena under the operational assumption that what I am studying is comprehensible.I believe the scientism page is wrong. Accepting scientism is, imo, the same as accepting the logic to the scientific method, a distinction is moot.
Then I will say nothing more on the wikipedia pages, other than to encourage other readers to view both pages, to see the obvious difference, by definition, between science (a method) and scientism (the opinion that it is the only method).Science starts with the assumption that the universe is consistent and measurable, military tactics start with the assumption that you are heading for conflict, so not exactly comparing like with like.
That is not a meaningful distinction. The use of Military tactics is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Militarism is a stance about the use of Military tactics. Science is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Scientism is a stance about Science. Very very very simple and obvious distinction.
Can I ask: Do you believe that, if you admit the difference between a method and a philosophical stance/argument, that your atheism will be weakened, or vulnerable to attack? It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of.
[edit]- It seems you have left out a key paragraph in your response to sponsoredwalk. Even the first sentence warrants a response:
"You forget the key word here, We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak naturally. That is the extent to which your evidence reaches."0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I dont understand your issue here? Horticulture is only piece of evidence (I've mentioned others), and in this case we use it to eliminate a possibility (something which you yourself did, when you declare a naturally talking bush to contradict our understanding of biology). I never said using these pieces of evidence would take very long, or that they wouldn't be used to eliminate possibilities.
Excuse me, you used this 'evidence' of horticulture to pass off a guess
about the fire never having taken place & also making a big guess about
the psychology of the claimant.Mark Hamill wrote: »Actually, yes you have. You have ignored where I already said...
You responded with this when I said I hadn't prematurely decided
anything, your response in no way shows me how I, in fact, did
prematurely decide upon whatever conclusion, instead you respond as
if I'd ignored something - but that kind of a response doesn't mean I've
prematurely decided anything
As for what I ignored:Mark Hamill wrote: »"Of course it [horticulture] has use. We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak. We dont just stop there however." and, ignored the other evidence I gave (the possibility of the voice coming from another source, the possibility the witness was a liar or insane) and for some reason latched onto horticulture with some elongated rant that was actually using horticulture in order to declare the use of horticulture as evidence as ludicrous ("For a bush to magically start speaking it would violate our current knowledge of biology so radically that we'd claim it was supernatural.").
I ignored that claim for very good reason, supressing the chance of a
very smart-alec comment too I'll have you know Basically I wasn't
going to bother indulging the fantasy conclusions you'd reached based
on this 'evidence' - what I ignored is just guesswork built upon
guesswork.
Horticulture is relevant for the claim about a bush burning naturally,
it is not relevant to the question about a supernatural entity in any way,
shape or form & you have obviously conceded this since you offer up
absolutely no counter argument & instead refer to this other evidence
that I'm apparently missing because I'm misreading your posts:Mark Hamill wrote: »I mentioned other pieces of evidence, above horticulture (which at least eliminated a possibility). Read my posts fully.
It's quite clear at this stage you're strengths lie in the vagueness of your
arguments, referring to the phantom evidence in your previous posts
is convenient but please, go back & quote your strongest piece of
evidence & I'll tell you why I haven't wasted my time on it. Just in
particular, the possibility of a voice coming from another source is
not going to be aided in any way, shape or form by horticulture at all
so again I just don't know why you'd be able to conclude, on the basis
of horticulture, that a voice came from another source - there's just
no way horticulture will help you decide that (unless we were entertaining
the possibility that the bush spoke naturally, but, again: totally different
argument...).
So to be crystal clear, my big elongated rant was a way of showing how
ludicrous your evidence actually is when we apply it in this conversation,
that's why I latched onto it, because it's the only relevance it has here.
It's pretty ironic that the very person arguing horticulture is relevant
to this question doesn't even understand one paragraph when we actually
attempt to apply horticulture :pac:Mark Hamill wrote: »
Of course I'm serious, you not only tried to used your 'evidence' of
horticulture to make "scientific claims" [read: guesses] about the psychology
of the bush person but whats far worse is that you tried to argue that
horticulture would in any way, shape or form tell us anything about
this situation at all!Mark Hamill wrote: »Its not guesswork. Everything about the claim can be accounted for naturally. Someone tricked the witness somehow, he was lying or insane.
Oh man, this is hilarious... You say this isn't guesswork,
then go right ahead & offer us three guesses :pac:
I never said this situation could or couldn't be accounted for naturally, it
might be - however it might not be (as is possible due to the claim that
is being put forth). I don't actually know & I don't think we have any
way of actually finding out. You have claimed that we can find out but
offered us nothing but handwavey argument from the authority of
irrelevant evidence (at best). There are words to describe that type of
argument...Mark Hamill wrote: »Unless someone brings in more evidence, any of these three possibilities are strong contenders. And thats how all scientific examinations go.
No, unless someone brings us any evidence it's just not a scientific
examination. You arbitrarily guessing amongst a load of maybe-possible
scenarios is not science. Every scenario is equally likely due to the
nullity of evidence, as are a few other scenarios we could just invent.
Without evidence we can't tell until you give us something of substance,
i.e. more than guessing. But again, & I have to stress this, because it's why
I'm bothering to post, horticulture is no scientific tool in this 'scientific inquiry.Mark Hamill wrote: »We accumulate and examine evidence, make predictions and determine which of our hypotheses best satisfy the evidence. If new evidence comes along, we make new models and examinations. I'm waiting for new evidence.
We're waiting for a tap, an inkling, a morsel of a hint of scientific evidence
from you still, let alone new evidence (wow...). You vaguely referring to
your earlier posts which I have apparently misread, according to you, is
not evidence. The evidence thus far has been abysmal, the reason I even
posted in this thread is because your vague argument from the authority
of horticulture was something I thought you'd get away with as serious if
you weren't called on it, the rest is completely void & not worth even
mentioning unless as a joke or to point out the systematic flaws.
I wanted to put this one at the end because this is the second time you've
done something like this in an argument with me, to read something
completely out of context & opposite to what I'm saying on boards &
I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or not:Mark Hamill wrote: »I said "Do you think each and every single phenomena, from a burning bush to how I managed to stub my toe on my bed this morning, needs to be investigated and published in a journal or book? We would never get anywhere if we couldn't take what we have obtained from investigations in the past and apply them to claimed events." , you responded with "These are all natural events, we know how to deal with natural events. The claim that a burning bush was speaking over 2000 years ago due to be a supernatural agent is one that we'll never be able to test is not something that we can say anything scientific about".
You countered my point that we can use previous studies and apply them to newly claimed events, by saying that these events (each and every phenomena ) are natural, implying that the 2000 year old claim was of a non-natural event. You may not have meant that, but you wrote it.
That would be a very clever misrepresentation of my words but honestly
I'm not sure, it would take some genius to find a loophole like that. You
mentioned a plurality of events: ""Do you think each and every single
phenomena, from a burning bush to how I managed to stub my toe on
my bed this morning" implying that they are all natural & that's what I
said, they are natural events. I agreed with you.
However in no way was I implying that we must assume this is
non-natural, it just makes no sense at all for me to argue that,
especially when my entire argument is that we have no possible
way of attaining evidence to decide pro or con.
That's what's simply astonishing about you attributing this argument to
me, my entire posts have been criticizing your attempt to claim that we
can find evidence about this because, as I've already said: it's "one that
we'll never be able to test & is not something that we can say anything
scientific about".
This just has to be a rhetorical trick, how could a person who argues there
is no possible way for their to be evidence for the situation that we're in
to go off & that claim that we can not only make an affirmative decision
but actually argue it must have been supernatural? Mind-boggling...
The equivalent of this situation would be for a person at the speech of
some racist orator coming out of the speech thinking the orator is a big
hippie because they misheard the beginning of a sentence & then
heard the orator say something non-racist. You can turn that around &
start with an anti-racist orator (as is the way I originally wrote it )
The point is that everything I have said has been the total opposite of
being able to make a definite claim about this situation so to try to
attribute this to me based on one sentence is really something else,
elementary reason would stop someone from saying such a thing...
I mean surely you can at least see how strange this appears, it's not
that big a deal but I mean it's the complete opposite of my argument
& not the first time this has happened[edit]- It seems you have left out a key paragraph in your response to sponsoredwalk. Even the first sentence warrants a response:
"You forget the key word here, We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak naturally. That is the extent to which your evidence reaches."
I think this was assumed as conceded due to the fact that he's dropped
the horticulture business & instead chosen to hint at the mountain of
evidence I've misread rather than defend the indefensible. I'd love to
have a serious argument about how horrendous this argument is -
scientifically studying whether god spoke through the bush, but if we cant
get past the most simple & obvious it's just not going to happen, but it's
an interesting question nonetheless.0 -
The story of the burning bush does not predict any evidence.
Thats not at all what I asked.Again, I find it hard to believe you cannot see the distinction. A Method requires a specific kind of approach (methodological assumptions). It does not require a philosophy or opinion about the ultimate nature of reality.
I find it hard to believe that you cant see that the criteria under which you examine and approach evidence is your point of view.I suspect you are omitting your previous choice of words in a deliberate attempt to stifle the discussion. You said "not defined in any testable way". You did not say "defined in any way".
Or, I didn't see the need to specify the word "testable"Theists don't define God in any testable way, but they still define, at the very least, a relationship mankind can have with God. So they do define what they believe in.
Except they dont. They dont have a testable definition of this relationship, so they are unable to define its limits and therefore they dont know what they are. If they dont know what the limits of this relationship, then they dont know what it actually represents, and so they cant say what it is they actually believe in.Empiricism, as an epistemological position, says you should not believe in things you cannot directly experience through the sense. Science does not say this because science is a method.
Science is an empirical method which requires you to assume that the universe is consistent and testable. I never said it was the same as empiricism, I said "something that is not defined in any testable way is, scientifically, indistinguishable from not existing".No I am not. All I can do is argue that it is scientifically established. Any truth value they want to infer doesn't interest me in the slightest. If they want to believe it was all a collective dream, or implanted memory then so be it.
Then you are implicitly trying to convince them of its veracity. The fact that you may ultimately accept they dont believe you doesn't change this. Why would you bother to argue that something is scientifically established to someone if you weren't trying to (possibly preemptively) counter some other hypotheses?Again (can I ask why I need to keep telling you this?) you are arguing in favour of scientism/naturalism, but you are not arguing that science and scientism are the same. Can you distinguish the difference between the lines of argument: "Science and scientism are equivalent" and "It is dissonant to accept science but to not hold the view of scientism."?
I'm beginning to think you are purposefully missing my point. If you accept the scientific methods assumptions about the universe, then you accept scientism, but you need to accept the assumptions in order to accept the scientific method. To explain this any more will only repeat the text you have just responded to.Reasonable theists do not assume God has interfered when they are unable to experiment on something. If the only way you can make your point is by repeatedly introducing straw-men then your point is not worth making.
According to you a "reasonable" theist accepts the scientific method, only has unscientific beliefs where there is no established science and may even change their unscientific beliefs if science does end having something to say about them. This is the same as saying they assume god stops interfering in established science at its every changing limit of understanding of the universe. There is no strawman.I did not simply say humanity. I said any being of arbitrary intelligence. E.g. The universe is not obliged to be understandable to any being, no matter how intelligent they are. If something is inherently incomprehensible, then science cannot be applied to it.
You are being awfully pedantic. How can something be inherently incomprehensible? Comprehension is subjective.But (and this is the distinction you refuse to acknowledge), this does not mean I can't apply the scientific method to phenomena under the operational assumption that what I am studying is comprehensible.
Eh, weren't you the one saying we couldn't examine a 5 minute old claim of a burning bush talking to someone?That is not a meaningful distinction. The use of Military tactics is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Militarism is a stance about the use of Military tactics. Science is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Scientism is a stance about Science. Very very very simple and obvious distinction.
Its a meaningful distinction if there is a meaningful difference between the methodological assumptions, which there is.Can I ask: Do you believe that, if you admit the difference between a method and a philosophical stance/argument, that your atheism will be weakened, or vulnerable to attack? It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of.
No, why would you think that?[edit]- It seems you have left out a key paragraph in your response to sponsoredwalk. Even the first sentence warrants a response:
"You forget the key word here, We can deduce that the bush itself didn't speak naturally. That is the extent to which your evidence reaches."
That is the extent to which the horticultural (very, very quickly) reaches. Other evidence, such as the witnesses personality and mental state, can help us reach other conclusions.0 -
Advertisement
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Excuse me, you used this 'evidence' of horticulture to pass off a guess about the fire never having taken place & also making a big guess about the psychology of the claimant.
In your effort to get off cheap jibes you aren't reading my posts properly. Here is what I said:
"With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself , that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating the entire experience. A simple scientific explanation is given for all parts of the claim, its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't apt."
Horticulture tells us that the bush didn't speak itself (yes its obvious, but, strictly speaking, you still need evidence to dismiss what is obvious). The issue of whether it was on fire was in reference to the biblical story claiming the bush was on fire, but not being burnt (NO-one had really made an issue of this, as we are discussing a general claim, but I accounted for it anyway). The possibility of the witness hallucinating (or just lying) is perfectly acceptable, so as I said, its up to the claimant to produce more evidence or else the claim, with all of its parts given a rational explanation, can be dismissed. Do read the posts more clearly, I wont go through this again.sponsoredwalk wrote: »You responded with this when I said I hadn't prematurely decided anything, your response in no way shows me how I, in fact, did prematurely decide upon whatever conclusion, instead you respond as if I'd ignored something - but that kind of a response doesn't mean I've prematurely decided anything
Your bizarre infatuation with horticulture in your last post showed that you had prematurely decided that I had based my entire argument on horticulture, which was spectacularly wrong.sponsoredwalk wrote: »As for what I ignored:
I ignored that claim for very good reason, supressing the chance of a very smart-alec comment too I'll have you know Basically I wasn't going to bother indulging the fantasy conclusions you'd reached based on this 'evidence' - what I ignored is just guesswork built upon guesswork.
So you admit that you did prematurely decide I had nothing else to say, by labeling as guesswork what was actually implication by observation. we know that people can lie about events like this, we know that people can hallucinate events like this. Both these possibilities fit the evidence, so without further evidence to contradict, they are both acceptable conclusions.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I just don't know why you'd be able to conclude, on the basis of horticulture, that a voice came from another source.
You yourself said that a bush naturally talking would violate everything we know about biology, therefore we know that voice had to come from somewhere else. Yes its really obvious, buts in only really obvious because of horticultural science. I thought it was obvious that I was being really strict in my assessment of the evidence (overly strict) but honestly, what the hell is your problem here?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Oh man, this is hilarious... You say this isn't guesswork, then go right ahead & offer us three guesses :pac:
I never said this situation could or couldn't be accounted for naturally, it might be - however it might not be (as is possible due to the claim that is being put forth). I don't actually know & I don't think we have any way of actually finding out. You have claimed that we can find out but offered us nothing but handwavey argument from the authority of irrelevant evidence (at best). There are words to describe that type of argument...
Its ironic how dismissive you are of me, and yet its you who fail to understand how the scientific method is working here. We get a claim, we examine the evidence and make hypotheses. So far, three hypotheses all fit the evidence given (the witness was tricked, lying or insane). Without any more evidence offered, all of these three hypotheses are acceptable. they account for everything in the claim and previous cases show they are very possible. There is nothing inconsistent with what I've said, I have offered no "guesses" without reason to support them. Your dismissal is full of crap.sponsoredwalk wrote: »No, unless someone brings us any evidence it's just not a scientific examination. You arbitrarily guessing amongst a load of maybe-possible scenarios is not science. Every scenario is equally likely due to the nullity of evidence, as are a few other scenarios we could just invent. Without evidence we can't tell until you give us something of substance, i.e. more than guessing. But again, & I have to stress this, because it's why I'm bothering to post, horticulture is no scientific tool in this 'scientific inquiry.
Your giving out to me and you come out with this nonsense? Even in an almost total lack of evidence (there is never a total lack of evidence), all possible scenarios are not equally likely, dont be ridiculous.sponsoredwalk wrote: »That's what's simply astonishing about you attributing this argument to me, my entire posts have been criticizing your attempt to claim that we can find evidence about this because, as I've already said: it's "one that we'll never be able to test & is not something that we can say anything scientific about".
Its make no sense to say we have no evidence to say anything about the claim. We have evidence about whats plants can do under normal circumstances. We have evidence about how people can be tricked, how they can lie and how they can hallucinate. We even have claims from others claiming that they heard a different voice in a way which contradicts the burning bush claim. There is always evidence.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I mean surely you can at least see how strange this appears, it's not that big a deal but I mean it's the complete opposite of my argument & not the first time this has happened
And I suppose its impossible for you to be wrong twice:rolleyes:?sponsoredwalk wrote: »I think this was assumed as conceded due to the fact that he's dropped the horticulture business & instead chosen to hint at the mountain of evidence I've misread rather than defend the indefensible. I'd love to have a serious argument about how horrendous this argument is - scientifically studying whether god spoke through the bush, but if we cant get past the most simple & obvious it's just not going to happen, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.
As I said to Morbert, and had already said to you, the horticultural evidence tells us it didn't naturally happen, which is an obvious but necessary conclusion you need to make. But there is much more evidence, which I have described at least twice now.
NB: Just like the last time we debated, your posts are overly long, repetitive rants, with a penchant for belaboring points that I didn't make in an effort to make cheap dismissive jibes (basing psychology on horticulture, wher do you come up with this bs :rolleyes:). Do everyone a favour and read my post entirely before responding to it, that way I wont get the same nonsense thrown at me more than once.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Thats not at all what I asked.
I am surprised I have to explain this.
You asked "In what way does the bit in bold not imply that the scientific method rejects evidence-less conclusions?"
The bit in bold was "If my hypothesis predicts evidence that is not found, then my hypothesis is falsified."
The story of the supernatural burning bush is evidence-less, but does not predict evidence. Science is never even applied to the question, so it cannot be rejected or affirmed by science at all. It can be rejected by naturalism, or even healthy skepticism.I find it hard to believe that you cant see that the criteria under which you examine and approach evidence is your point of view.
It's very simple. I don't believe uniformitarianism is necessarily true (my hunch would be that it is true on some level). But I still apply a method of investigation under the assumption that it is at least true under some cases. I also accept any scientifically established theory.Or, I didn't see the need to specify the word "testable"
Well now I hope you do see the need. Define and "define such that it is testable", are very different criteria.Except they dont. They dont have a testable definition of this relationship, so they are unable to define its limits and therefore they dont know what they are. If they dont know what the limits of this relationship, then they dont know what it actually represents, and so they cant say what it is they actually believe in.
It doesn't follow that, because they do not fully understand the nature of the relationship, that they don't know what they believe.Science is an empirical method which requires you to assume that the universe is consistent and testable. I never said it was the same as empiricism, I said "something that is not defined in any testable way is, scientifically, indistinguishable from not existing".
Maybe we are making progress. It seems you do not object to the fact that science and empricism are different things. Yet the scientific method of investigation is an empirical method i.e. Scientists make the assumption that empiricism is true when they are investigating. Can you now see that, even if scientists assumed scientism is true in order to carry out investigations (technically they don't), that science and scientism are different things?Then you are implicitly trying to convince them of its veracity. The fact that you may ultimately accept they dont believe you doesn't change this. Why would you bother to argue that something is scientifically established to someone if you weren't trying to (possibly preemptively) counter some other hypotheses?
You can repeat a falsehood a thousand times and it will not make it any more true. I would bother because 99.999% of people, theists included, have confidence in the scientific method. If someone didn't -If someone rejected empiricism and asserted we were all created yesterday, with the appearance of age - then I would not bother at all.I'm beginning to think you are purposefully missing my point. If you accept the scientific methods assumptions about the universe, then you accept scientism, but you need to accept the assumptions in order to accept the scientific method. To explain this any more will only repeat the text you have just responded to.
"Science" does not assume anything about the universe. It is empiricism which codifies assumptions about what we can know about the universe, along with uniformitarianism, which assumes the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. I accept these on a "rough and ready" operational, methodological level. But I do not accept them as metaphysical truths. I still do not understand how you can't see the distinction between "I will carry out this investigation under the assumption that what I am studying can be understood in terms of general rules and principles" and "The supernatural does not exist. There is nothing that is true and cannot be established by the scientific method" Do you see any distinction?According to you a "reasonable" theist accepts the scientific method, only has unscientific beliefs where there is no established science and may even change their unscientific beliefs if science does end having something to say about them. This is the same as saying they assume god stops interfering in established science at its every changing limit of understanding of the universe. There is no strawman.
I did not say this. I do not think it is reasonable for a theist to have unscientific beliefs about something that is not scientifically established. I think it is lazy for theists like John Lennox to imply abiogenesis was a divine event simply because we don't have an established theory yet. Abiogenesis is an example of something that, while not fully established, is emphatically a scientific question, with progress being made consistently. What I said that reasonable theists (at least comparatively reasonable) accept all of established science even if they believe in supernatural events.You are being awfully pedantic. How can something be inherently incomprehensible? Comprehension is subjective.
Something is inherently incomprehensible if it cannot be understood by any being of arbitrary intelligence. I.e. The universe cannot necessarily be entirely described by physical laws, by any being.Eh, weren't you the one saying we couldn't examine a 5 minute old claim of a burning bush talking to someone?
Yes.Its a meaningful distinction if there is a meaningful difference between the methodological assumptions, which there is.
How is the difference meaningful to this discussion? What is meaningful is: The use of Military tactics is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Militarism is a stance about the use of Military tactics. Science is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Scientism is a stance about Science.
It is an entirely appropriate analogy.No, why would you think that?
I don't mean to sound rude, but I really think you have a hard time engaging in discussion. I explained why I would think that in the very next sentence of the same paragraph "It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of.".
It is basic etiquette not to fisk a paragraph apart, as you will not infer anything from it, and it means I have to clean up after your mess.That is the extent to which the horticultural (very, very quickly) reaches. Other evidence, such as the witnesses personality and mental state, can help us reach other conclusions.
*shrug* We're not talking about conclusions. We're talking about science vs. scientism. If a theist accepts that there is no scientific evidence for a naturally burning, speaking bush, but chooses to believe in it anyway then so what?
To anyone else who might be reading this.
It is hard to follow, but I would explain my point as follows: Science is a rigorous application of skepticism and empiricism. Think of science as a specialised technique which stems from epistemic ideas. Someone can appreciated the potency and efficacy of the scientific method, carry out the scientific method, and accept any and all scientifically established theories, but still reject naturalism, materialism, and scientism, and even skepticism. I am not arguing that it is reasonable to do so. I am arguing that there exists a distinction between a set of ideas, and a system of investigation inspired by those ideas. In fact, science doesn't even stem from scientism. This is a very simple and distinct point, which warranted a few sentences. Mark has since introduced several arguments, ranging from the claim that "not interfering" is metaphysically identical to "not existing", to the claim that theists are hypocrites in order to refute the simple point I made. I normally would not spend this much time on an exchange, but my point is so remarkably simple that I would find it frustrating to let this slide.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »In your effort to get off cheap jibes you aren't reading my posts properly. Here is what I said:
"With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself , that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating the entire experience. A simple scientific explanation is given for all parts of the claim, its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't apt."
What have I misread in this? What point did I miss exactly? I thought
I'd pointed out your evidence was so flawed to begin with that we
don't even need to indulge your guesses about the psychology (hallucinating)
of the person.
It's not scientific evidence to say that a person was hallucinating just
because some people hallucinate. I dare you to make that argument
with a straight face to a psychologist
Furthermore, this idea that just because we found something that fits
it doesn't mean that this was the case. I go into this in considerable
detail below.Mark Hamill wrote: »Your bizarre infatuation with horticulture in your last post showed that you had prematurely decided that I had based my entire argument on horticulture, which was spectacularly wrong.
Wow, I have explicitly said that horticulture is the only bit of substance
in your arguments. I said it at the start of my very first post. I made it
explicitly clear that I was examing what you were presenting as evidence.
If you call examining your evidence a bizzare infatuation then that is
really something else.
As for me being spectacularly wrong about you basing your entire
argument on horticulture, I explicitly said that this is the only piece
of evidence you've presented that I thought was worth the time to
criticize. What's more, & this is the real killer, I asked you to quote,
to quote, your other evidence that I had ignored. You have not done
this. So if you can't even do this then I am not spectacularly wrong
am I? But we'll just be extra careful, at the start of this post you
quoted an earlier comment of yours. If you are going to argue that
this was what I ignored you're not only wrong but the comment is
dealing specifically with horticulture (which is what I've been responding
to) so it's just false.
As to the specific word prematurely decided, you are just playing word
games at this stage, it's extremely clear now, I explicitly pointed out
how you responded accusing me of ignoring things, that in no way means
I prematurely decided anything. I'll be crystal clear about this prematurity
issue here:Mark Hamill wrote: »So you admit that you did prematurely decide I had nothing else to say, by labeling as guesswork what was actually implication by observation.
I've explained in detail why this is just guesswork already but took the
time to point out in this post even moreso why this is all guesswork.
See below in the part where I quoted Dawkins book.
But I did not prematurely decide you had nothing else to say, I said
I was ignoring what you said because it's useless, horticulture is the
only leg you have to stand on & this is only because it appears as if
it carries some authority in this question. You have in no way whatsoever
defended the claim that horticulture is relevant & I've given even more
reasons below (the shamrock area) why this is such horrendous evidence.
So again, please quote an earlier passage of yours that doesn't rely on
horticulture in some way that you think is evidence & I'll explain to you
why it's so horrendously misleading to label it as science.Mark Hamill wrote: »we know that people can lie about events like this, we know that people can hallucinate events like this. Both these possibilities fit the evidence, so without further evidence to contradict, they are both acceptable conclusions.
See below.Mark Hamill wrote: »You yourself said that a bush naturally talking would violate everything we know about biology, therefore we know that voice had to come from somewhere else. Yes its really obvious, buts in only really obvious because of horticultural science. I thought it was obvious that I was being really strict in my assessment of the evidence (overly strict) but honestly, what the hell is your problem here?
It's not because of horticultural science, do you know what horticulture
is? To say a horticulturalist would be responsible for determining this
question would be like saying chemists work on elementary particle
physics because chemists deal with quantum mechanics. The vagueness
underlying all of these arguments is astonishing...Mark Hamill wrote: »Its ironic how dismissive you are of me, and yet its you who fail to understand how the scientific method is working here. We get a claim, we examine the evidence and make hypotheses. So far, three hypotheses all fit the evidence given (the witness was tricked, lying or insane). Without any more evidence offered, all of these three hypotheses are acceptable. they account for everything in the claim and previous cases show they are very possible. There is nothing inconsistent with what I've said, I have offered no "guesses" without reason to support them. Your dismissal is full of crap.
Your giving out to me and you come out with this nonsense? Even in an almost total lack of evidence (there is never a total lack of evidence), all possible scenarios are not equally likely, dont be ridiculous.
More vagueness, explain to us why it's less likely that the person was
hallucinating as opposed to the claim that the person was actually insane,
or maybe the person was lying? Perhaps this never occurred & someone
made this whole story up? Perhaps this story comes from a previous
religious myth whose evidence was destroyed by the early catholics?
Which one do we pick? In fact how do we find out which one is better
than the other in any way, shape or form? This is what I'm calling pure
guessing, we just don't know which scenario is possible so it's pure
guessing. Science isn't having 6 equally likely possibilities - each of which
we have no evidence whatsoever about & none of which we'll ever be able
to say happened with any certainty.
For all we know it was really a talking tree & the story shifted through
the ages. Using your level of scientific operation I can say that this is
more likely because we have evidence that poems such as the Song of
Solomon are usually pieced together from other sources:Admittedly, a scholar seeking to trace the origins of, say, the Song of
Solomon is aware that it is not quite what it seems. The Song has oddly
disjointed passages, suggesting that it is really fragments of several
different poems, only some of them erotic, stitched together. It
contains errors — mutations — especially in translation. “Take us the
foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines” is a mistranslation, even
though a lifetime's repetition has given it a haunting appeal of its own,
which is unlikely to be matched by the more correct “Catch for us the
fruit bats, the little fruit bats ...”
Dawkins - "River Out of Eden"
Pure guesswork, you seem to think guesswork is saying elephant when
a teach asks students to guess the answer to 3 + 2 = _. Guesses are
not just ridiculous uninformed answers, they have relevance to the
question at hand - but this is not scientific evidence & never will be until
you get serious. So until you can explain to me why not only allowing for
6 possible scenarios but also being able to just invent other possible
scenarios with a bit of creative thought is science I don't think I'm full
of crap.
The very fact that we have 6 equally likely scenarios is not science, you
said above that because we've found a simple scientific scenario that
it's up to the claimant to argue why it isn't apt, well if you can't even
distinguish between 6 scenarios, or even more we can just invent, then
this is not science, it's - to repeat the phrase - guesswork.Mark Hamill wrote: »Its make no sense to say we have no evidence to say anything about the claim. We have evidence about whats plants can do under normal circumstances.
Again, if we were having a different conversation - the conversation
about the plant speaking naturally - this would be relevant but, again,
you are arguing from the authority of irrelevant evidence. The nature
of plants will tell us nothing about this question, nothing. The whole
point of this conversation is that we're dealing with the exact opposite,
the plant was not acting under normal circumstances so normal
circumstances have absolutely no relevance.Mark Hamill wrote: »We have evidence about how people can be tricked, how they can lie and how they can hallucinate. We even have claims from others claiming that they heard a different voice in a way which contradicts the burning bush claim. There is always evidence.
These are all guesses - as I explained above. The whole question here is
that you have claimed that we can scientifically determine what happened
here yet offered us absolutely no way to distinguish between at least 6
possibilities. The fact that you think this constitutes science is just a
complete misunderstanding of science.Mark Hamill wrote: »And I suppose its impossible for you to be wrong twice:rolleyes:?
This is a very convenient response, brings with it a lot of possible
insinuations about me, but the substance is non-existent with a response
like this. I went into considerable detail to show how you are acting in
this argument - picking a sentence out of context & then arguing that
I'm making the exact opposite point that the rest of my elongated rants
argue for. What's more is that I have old evidence of you doing this
exact same thing to me - so that's two pieces of evidence to show that
you were, in fact, making a ridiculous argument & misrepresenting my
words. I think you're going to need a hell of a lot more than a :rolleyes: to
argue I'm not right about this. I said I don't really care, fine you took
a sentence of mine out of context. It's just the fact that it's entirely
opposite of the rest of my arguments, says to me you're not really
reading me but instead just quoting sentences just to respond.Mark Hamill wrote: »As I said to Morbert, and had already said to you, the horticultural evidence tells us it didn't naturally happen,Mark Hamill wrote: »which is an obvious but necessary conclusion you need to make.
You see we haven't even begun to delve into the lunacy of using the
authority of horticulture yet. I made the first attempt in examing what
implications horticulture would have here in that "elongated rant" you
referred to & it went over your head but I'll try again with a different
approach. I'll shamrock-point it for clarity:
♣ In my elongated rant we disposed of the idea that horticulture
will tell us whether the bush spoke by itself. The reason I questioned
this was because you claimed:Mark Hamill wrote: »With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself,
If we need to conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself it immediately
implies that we were entertaining the possibility that the bush spoke
itself. That's very simple logic. If we are entertaining the possibility that
the bush spoke by itself then we are examining a totally different
argument. So are giving evidence to a claim nobody made, the only
reason a person would do this is to make their case appear that little
bit stronger by making it appear that it answers some side question
as well. This is pure fraud as I've shown in my elongated rant because
if we even attempt to question the question you are trying to give
answers to we make total fools of out of ourselves... You simply will
not understand what I've said unless you bother to read my elongated
rant properly.
♣ Furthermore, the reason the reference to horticulture is particularly
irrelevant is because there is no way it can help us whether the bush
was burning via real flames (i.e. affecting the bush) or religious flames
(not impacting the bush). We need to entertain both possibilities - as I'll
do via sub-shamrock-points (represented by♥'s to distinguish them) :
♥ Assuming The bush burned using real flames 2000 years ago I just
beg you to tell us why we need horticultural procedures to confirm that
the bush actually burned when we can see it in plain front of us?
The logic here is like saying we need a doctor to confirm a person is
bleeding before we can decide - even though we can see the person
bleeding right in front of us :pac:
(This assumes the bush burned & absolutely nothing grew in that place, the debris miraculously
remained intact for over 2000 years etc... etc... ).
♥ Assuming the bush didn't burn by itself can you please tell us why we
need horticulture to tell us that the bush didn't burn when we can clearly
see the bush in front of us?
Again, this is exactly like needing a doctor to tell you you're not bleeding
when, shock, you're not bleeding.
So honestly, no matter what way we try to include horticulture into this
conversation we can't, it's so unbelievably ridiculous. Clearly you haven't
thought about it at all & are arguing from the authority of scientific
evidence, whatever that evidence is. This is a common mode of rhetoric,
inserting a big technical word accompanied by a vague nod. It was just
obvious there was no substance to this from the beginning, furthermore
you've offered absolutely no defense for it &, to finish, if we try to
apply your 'evidence' we not only find out it's completely irrelevant but
even entertaining the idea that it's relevant is to admit ridiculous
possibilities. There's no clearer way to say that this isn't scientific
evidence in any way, shape or form.Mark Hamill wrote: »which is an obvious but necessary conclusion you need to make. But there is much more evidence, which I have described at least twice now.
I've already asked you to present the best of it, if you're going to respond
to this with your interpretation of the possible psychology of the individual
that isn't evidence as it ignores so much, which I've gone over in
this post. I seen nothing else in your latest post other than horticulture
& guesses about the psychology (much motivated by the horticulture).
I'll give you another shot, get your best evidence & explain why it's
science, especially in light of the fact that we have at least 6 mentioned
thus far & that we can just invent other equally likely possibilities.Mark Hamill wrote: »NB: Just like the last time we debated, your posts are overly long, repetitive rants, with a penchant for belaboring points that I didn't make
Could you please point out one place where I have belabored a point you
didn't make & actually explain how I bang on about a point you didn't
make, if this is a comment about me trying to apply your horticulture to
this discussion - you can't blame me since you've offered absolutely
nothing specific & relied on vague references to horticultural authority.Mark Hamill wrote: »in an effort to make cheap dismissive jibes (basing psychology on horticulture, wher do you come up with this bs :rolleyes:).
I get this bs from your posts:Mark Hamill wrote: »With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself, that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating the entire experience.
Notice the chain of logic in your own post: Based on the horticultural
evidence you just used to discount the bush wasn't on fire & didn't speak
by itself you then explain to us, on the basis of this, that the witness
was fully capable of hallucinating. Now not only were your assumptions
extremely, extremely, flawed (as I've explained from several different viewpoints in
order to highlight how flawed they are) you just have no business in telling us that
your guess about the mental faculties of the apparent witness is science.
Basing conclusions on faulty evidence is the very definition of bad
science. What's worse is claiming that it's science when you don't have
one, but at least 6 different scenarios that could maybe, possibly,
might-be what happened (maybe).Mark Hamill wrote: »Do everyone a favour and read my post entirely before responding to it, that way I wont get the same nonsense thrown at me more than once.
Not only did I read all of your posts but I asked you to present some of
the evidence I apparently misread & you've failed to do that (because
there isn't any). I haven't said anything that's nonsense yet & simply
beg you to actually explain, in detail, what is nonsense about what I've
said. I've actually thought through your arguments & what you've been
saying, even before I started posting in this thread & as you can clearly
see I've gone through your arguments in different ways & even still I
asked you to go back & quote the best argument you have so that I can
explain, in detail, why I've ignored it. The last thing I would say is that
I'm misreading you, if anything I'm wasting my time thinking about
your arguments too much
I just want to make a side point, I'm really not trying to get at you
here, I'm just trying to get at your arguments. I think you're making
an awful argument that was doomed to begin with because it's just the
inherent nature of the question. This is why science stays away from
religious claims unless you can actually pit them against evidence (such
as the beginning of the bible, a point that most definitely upsets the ego's
of the people involved despite you thinking otherwise). There is a far
deeper question about biases, choices & beliefs involved here that are
just inescapable, I don't think the cult of scientism has ever made an
argument to invalidate these elementary truths. I'm gonna quote M.
Shermer's essay from the Ayn Rand thread:What separates science from all other human activities (and morality has
never been successfully placed on a scientific basis), is its belief in the
tentative nature of all conclusions. There are no final absolutes in science,
only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific "facts" are just
conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer
temporary agreement, but never final assent. Science is not the
affirmation of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building
a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation.
In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. That is the heart of its
limitation. It is also its greatest strength.
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml
Nothing you've offered has been confirmed in any way, is testable or
even examinable & most certainly none of the most likely possibilities
are distinguishable & you've offered no way to test any of these claims
except perhaps in principle if we were there 2000 years ago.0 -
The story of the supernatural burning bush is evidence-less, but does not predict evidence. Science is never even applied to the question, so it cannot be rejected or affirmed by science at all. It can be rejected by naturalism, or even healthy skepticism.
Does it not predict a supernatural entity capable of talking through a burning bush?It's very simple. I don't believe uniformitarianism is necessarily true (my hunch would be that it is true on some level). But I still apply a method of investigation under the assumption that it is at least true under some cases. I also accept any scientifically established theory.
This is not what I meant here. I mean that in general, the the criteria under which you examine and approach evidence is your point of view. A method, which gives you such criteria, is a point of view, even if it has limits.It doesn't follow that, because they do not fully understand the nature of the relationship, that they don't know what they believe.
If they claim to believe in a relationship but are unable to define it then they dont know what it is they believe in. Without any definitions, how do they visualise it in any way (physically or otherwise)?, how do they describe it to others? how can they recognise it?Can you now see that, even if scientists assumed scientism is true in order to carry out investigations (technically they don't), that science and scientism are different things?
No. Scientists assume that science is true (ie that its assumptions are valid). Scientism assumes sciences assumptions are true. Therefore to assume science is true is to assume scientism is true."Science" does not assume anything about the universe. It is empiricism which codifies assumptions about what we can know about the universe, along with uniformitarianism, which assumes the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
But in order to use the method, you must accept these empirical assumptions, you said so just few lines ago.I accept these on a "rough and ready" operational, methodological level. But I do not accept them as metaphysical truths. I still do not understand how you can't see the distinction between "I will carry out this investigation under the assumption that what I am studying can be understood in terms of general rules and principles" and "The supernatural does not exist. There is nothing that is true and cannot be established by the scientific method" Do you see any distinction?
The assumptions require to do science amount to saying "the supernatural doesn't exist" and if that is true, then it follows that "There is nothing that is true and cannot be established by the scientific method".What I said that reasonable theists (at least comparatively reasonable) accept all of established science even if they believe in supernatural events.
But what they consider to be a supernatural event is defined by how much scientific investigation has gone in the field. Abiogenisis today is a scientific question, because we have investigated scientifically and found useful and interesting preliminary results, but 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Where life came form was as far away as a 2000 year old burning bush.Something is inherently incomprehensible if it cannot be understood by any being of arbitrary intelligence. I.e. The universe cannot necessarily be entirely described by physical laws, by any being.
But you can never claim that something is inherently comprehensible. If you cant comprehend something, then you are unable to tell difference between it being beyond your comprehension and being beyond any comprehension. You can never actually conclude that anything is inherently incomprehensible.Yes.
So it is possible to apply the scientific method to the burning bush claim under the operational assumption that it is comprehensible?How is the difference meaningful to this discussion? What is meaningful is: The use of Military tactics is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Militarism is a stance about the use of Military tactics. Science is a method that employs some methodological assumptions. Scientism is a stance about Science.
It is an entirely appropriate analogy.
As I already said, the methodological assumptions are different for science and military tactics. Since the assumptions are different, the stances related to the use of these methods wont necessarily be comparable.I don't mean to sound rude, but I really think you have a hard time engaging in discussion. I explained why I would think that in the very next sentence of the same paragraph "It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of.".
It is basic etiquette not to fisk a paragraph apart, as you will not infer anything from it, and it means I have to clean up after your mess.
I didnt separate the paragraph, I understood that you saw my posts as becoming more and more contrived, but I hoped you had something more tangible for why you came to that particular conclusion.If a theist accepts that there is no scientific evidence for a naturally burning, speaking bush, but chooses to believe in it anyway then so what?
Then they are accepting a conclusion without any evidence. Which is contrary to the scientific method.I am arguing that there exists a distinction between a set of ideas, and a system of investigation inspired by those ideas.
But the system of investigation isn't inspired by those ideas, it is an application of those ideas that is only reliable if you accept those ideas and if those ideas are valid.Mark has since introduced several arguments, ranging from the claim that "not interfering" is metaphysically identical to "not existing",
Scientifically, not metaphysically.to the claim that theists are hypocrites in order to refute the simple point I made.
You admit they are unreasonable, but not hypocrites?0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »It's not scientific evidence to say that a person was hallucinating just because some people hallucinate. I dare you to make that argument with a straight face to a psychologist [IMG]http://b-static.net/vbulletin/images /smilies/pacman.gif[/IMG]
Strawman. I didn't make that argument to you. I merely said it was possible and that it was up to the claimant to produce more evidence to eliminate this possibility.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Wow, I have explicitly said that horticulture is the only bit of substance
in your arguments. I said it at the start of my very first post. I made it
explicitly clear that I was examing what you were presenting as evidence.
If you call examining your evidence a bizzare infatuation then that is
really something else.
Accurate or not, you have attempted to portray my entire argument as being purely in terms of the horticultural evidence, multiple times. Its not just a case that you think this is only bit of substance, you have continuously tried to portray everything else I said in terms of horticulture, despite how crazy it was.sponsoredwalk wrote: »What's more, & this is the real killer, I asked you to quote, to quote, your other evidence that I had ignored. You have not done this.
Go back to the top of this post that I am quoting, and read the first of my posts you quoted (which itself quoted an early of my posts). Keep playing this childish game and on ignore you will go.sponsoredwalk wrote: »It's not because of horticultural science, do you know what horticulture is? To say a horticulturalist would be responsible for determining this question would be like saying chemists work on elementary particle physics because chemists deal with quantum mechanics. The vagueness underlying all of these arguments is astonishing...
So now you are saying that a horticulturist wouldn't be able to tell you if a plant could talk, that the people who grow and cultivate plants wouldn't know if they had the ability to make conversation ? Are you f*cking kidding me?sponsoredwalk wrote: »More vagueness, explain to us why it's less likely that the person was hallucinating as opposed to the claim that the person was actually insane, or maybe the person was lying?
And where the hell did I say that?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Science isn't having 6 equally likely possibilities - each of which we have no evidence whatsoever about & none of which we'll ever be able to say happened with any certainty.
In this case, those possibilities are all we have, without more evidence. We dont say we know what happened for sure with the claim, but each possibility is more likely than the claim itself.sponsoredwalk wrote: »So until you can explain to me why not only allowing for 6 possible scenarios but also being able to just invent other possible scenarios with a bit of creative thought is science I don't think I'm full of crap.
The very fact that we have 6 equally likely scenarios is not science, you said above that because we've found a simple scientific scenario that it's up to the claimant to argue why it isn't apt, well if you can't even distinguish between 6 scenarios, or even more we can just invent, then this is not science, it's - to repeat the phrase - guesswork.
Do you understand how science works? Because you really aren't showing it at all. These guesses? They're called hypothesis and what we do is see if these hypotheses are supported by any evidence. If we get an hypothesis supported by all the evidence (and assuming there is plenty of evidence) we can accept this hypothesis as being reasonably likely to be true. In our case we have multiple hypotheses, which all support the evidence, which all dont require us to throw out everything we know about plant biology, so scientifically, all we do is offer them as possibilities and request more evidence so that we can eliminate them. I would have thought only the likes of JC and Dead One would get science as wrong as you are.sponsoredwalk wrote: »The whole point of this conversation is that we're dealing with the exact opposite, the plant was not acting under normal circumstances so normal circumstances have absolutely no relevance.
You dont know that the plant was acting under abnormal circumstances, all you have is a claim, so you cant assume that it was abnormal circumstances. We can assume it was normal circumstances, and examine other possibilities for what happened, possibilities that dont require talking plants.sponsoredwalk wrote: »If we need to conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself it immediately implies that we were entertaining the possibility that the bush spoke itself. That's very simple logic. If we are entertaining the possibility that the bush spoke by itself then we are examining a totally different argument. So are giving evidence to a claim nobody made, the only reason a person would do this is to make their case appear that little bit stronger by making it appear that it answers some side question as well.
I said a dozen posts ago that when examining a supernatural claim, you must alter it to make it falsifiable, so that you can eliminate possibilities. If you claim that you cant do this, then you are saying that any claim worded to include the supernatural cannot be tested, which causes some pretty damn obvious problems for anything we have, do or will test, as you can word any claim to involve the supernatural, if you like. You inability to see that I was just being pedantic by invoking horticulture just makes you look the fool, not me.sponsoredwalk wrote: »♥ Assuming The bush burned using real flames 2000 years ago I just beg you to tell us why we need horticultural procedures to confirm that the bush actually burned when we can see it in plain front of us? The logic here is like saying we need a doctor to confirm a person is bleeding before we can decide - even though we can see the person bleeding right in front of us (This assumes the bush burned & absolutely nothing grew in that place, the debris miraculously remained intact for over 2000 years etc... etc... ).
♥ Assuming the bush didn't burn by itself can you please tell us why we need horticulture to tell us that the bush didn't burn when we can clearly
see the bush in front of us? Again, this is exactly like needing a doctor to tell you you're not bleeding when, shock, you're not bleeding.
Strawman. I never claimed that horticulture told us anything about the fire.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I've already asked you to present the best of it, if you're going to respond
to this with your interpretation of the possible psychology of the individual
that isn't evidence as it ignores so much, which I've gone over in
this post. I seen nothing else in your latest post other than horticulture
& guesses about the psychology (much motivated by the horticulture).
I'll give you another shot, get your best evidence & explain why it's
science, especially in light of the fact that we have at least 6 mentioned
thus far & that we can just invent other equally likely possibilities.
Explain to me what is different between saying "we know from biology that plants dont talk, therefore we can say the plant didn't talk" and "we know from psychology that people can hallucinate, therefore its possible the witness hallucinated"?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Could you please point out one place where I have belabored a point you didn't make & actually explain how I bang on about a point you didn't make, if this is a comment about me trying to apply your horticulture to this discussion - you can't blame me since you've offered absolutely nothing specific & relied on vague references to horticultural authority.
You've strawmaned me twice in this very post that I'm responding to.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Notice the chain of logic in your own post: Based on the horticultural
evidence
Ah. now I see why you keep getting it wrong. You know how you only recognise the horticultural evidence and dont recognise any other evidence I have brought up? Well, you see I do recognise that other evidence, and all that evidence together allows me to make those individual conclusions. But I have no more based my conclusion that the witness could have hallucinated on horticulture than I based the conclusion that the bush didn't speak on psychology Such an empty headed leap of logic would require a run and jump for most people to reach :rolleyes:.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I just want to make a side point, I'm really not trying to get at you here, I'm just trying to get at your arguments. I think you're making an awful argument that was doomed to begin with because it's just the inherent nature of the question. This is why science stays away from religious claims unless you can actually pit them against evidence (such as the beginning of the bible, a point that most definitely upsets the ego's of the people involved despite you thinking otherwise).
I dont see it like that. Science doesn't stay away from religious claims unless they can be pitted against actual evidence, its simply that without evidence, religious claims have no scientific value. Its assumed that the situation should be: science uses evidence to shoot down religious claims, but in reality, when in reality it should be: religious claims come with supporting evidence to be scientifically tested. That religious claims cant/dont, means that they stay away from science not other way around.sponsoredwalk wrote: »There is a far deeper question about biases, choices & beliefs involved here that are just inescapable, I don't think the cult of scientism has ever made an argument to invalidate these elementary truths.
(I may not be reading thsi point right, but assuming I am:) People will always have biases and beliefs, should we shy away from examining anything because our biases might get in the way? Or should we attempt to overcome them or make checks against them to weaken their hold?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Nothing you've offered has been confirmed in any way, is testable or even examinable & most certainly none of the most likely possibilities are distinguishable & you've offered no way to test any of these claims except perhaps in principle if we were there 2000 years ago.
It is confirmed that plants dont talk, that people can be fooled, can lie, exaggerate and hallucinate. Nothing offered by the claimant can be used to discount any of these possibilities and so its up to the claimant to offer more evidence. Its always up to the claimant to offer more evidence, science is a tool for testing for modelling, but you need to tell it what to test and model. Scientifically we have done what we can with what little evidence we were supplied and we have numerous reasonable possibilities that dont involve supernatural entities. This is only bad for the claimant, not science or the scientist.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Does it not predict a supernatural entity capable of talking through a burning bush?
No.This is not what I meant here. I mean that in general, the the criteria under which you examine and approach evidence is your point of view. A method, which gives you such criteria, is a point of view, even if it has limits.
How does this line of thought support your claim that science and scientism are equivalent?If they claim to believe in a relationship but are unable to define it then they dont know what it is they believe in. Without any definitions, how do they visualise it in any way (physically or otherwise)?, how do they describe it to others? how can they recognise it?
They are able to define their relationship on a theological level.No. Scientists assume that science is true (ie that its assumptions are valid). Scientism assumes sciences assumptions are true. Therefore to assume science is true is to assume scientism is true.
Wow. Christians assume the supernatural exists. Islam assumes the supernatural exists. Therefore to assume the supernatural exists is to assume Islam is true. Can you see how unhelpful this is to the discussion. Instead, we should note that scientists assume a methodological naturalism (i.e. The focus of their investigation has a natural explanation) when they carry out a scientific investigation (an affirmation or falsification of a theory based on the predictions that theory makes about observables). Scientism is the position that science is the most authoritative system of investigation we have. Therefore to say science and scientism are the same is silly.But in order to use the method, you must accept these empirical assumptions, you said so just few lines ago.
Methodologically, yes. I.e. You operate under the assumptions for the purpose of the investigation.The assumptions require to do science amount to saying "the supernatural doesn't exist" and if that is true, then it follows that "There is nothing that is true and cannot be established by the scientific method".
Well they don't amount to that but I would much rather focus on your claim that science (a method) and scientism (a philosophical position), are both either a method or a philosophical position.But what they consider to be a supernatural event is defined by how much scientific investigation has gone in the field. Abiogenisis today is a scientific question, because we have investigated scientifically and found useful and interesting preliminary results, but 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Where life came form was as far away as a 2000 year old burning bush.
And once we developed the technology and prerequisite theory to investigate abiogenesis, the reasonable theist would say "My mistake, I shouldn't have used God as a gap-filler, and I fully accept that it is a scientific matter". The burning bush, however, is not a gap-filler. It is not something that explains an event that science might somehow uncover later on. And even if it somehow does, a theist, like myself, can admit they were wrong about the issue.But you can never claim that something is inherently comprehensible. If you cant comprehend something, then you are unable to tell difference between it being beyond your comprehension and being beyond any comprehension. You can never actually conclude that anything is inherently incomprehensible.
I did not claim something was inherently incomprehensible. I said it is possible that there are facets of the universe which are inherently incomprehensible. I.e. I reject the claim that scientific, methodological assumptions are necessarily true. If science and scientism were the same thing, I would not be able to do this.So it is possible to apply the scientific method to the burning bush claim under the operational assumption that it is comprehensible?
If it produced any observable phenomenon we could study, sure. But it doesn't. It is as unobservable as the invisible panda that orbits pluto.As I already said, the methodological assumptions are different for science and military tactics. Since the assumptions are different, the stances related to the use of these methods wont necessarily be comparable.
You have pointed out they are different, but you have not pointed out why they aren't analogous. Why is my analogy inappropriate?I didn't separate the paragraph
You did separate the paragraph. You separated it into sentences, and responded to one of those sentences. Like what I am doing now. See how frustrating it is?Then they are accepting a conclusion without any evidence. Which is contrary to the scientific method.
And they can accept that they are not using the scientific method.But the system of investigation isn't inspired by those ideas, it is an application of those ideas that is only reliable if you accept those ideas and if those ideas are valid.
Science is inspired by skepticism and empiricism. I don't know how you can argue with that. And science is an application of those ideas, but that does not mean science is equivalent to those ideas. Financial modelling is an application of maths. This doesn't mean maths is equivalent to financial modelling.Scientifically, not metaphysically.
So you accept that not existing is not metaphysically identical to not interfering? Great. They can perform science under the assumption that the supernatural will not interfere, an assumption that is scientifically equivalent to the assumption that the supernatural does not exist, while still drawing a metaphysical distinction. A stance which might be described as cognitively dissonant, but not logically inconsistent.You admit they are unreasonable, but not hypocrites?
Yes. Though I would make it clear that "reasonableness" is a spectrum, and I find, say, theistic evolutionists far more reasonable than creationists. And many theists I know have no issue with describing their beliefs as not stemming from reason or rational consideration.0 -
No.
I dont see how it doesn't. Doesn't any claim, technically, predict the thing its claiming?How does this line of thought support your claim that science and scientism are equivalent?
It contradicts your point that the scientific method isn't a point of view. If a method provides a particular set criteria under which you should examine and test something (a point of view), and philosophy describes that same point of view, then acceptance of the method amounts to the same as acceptance of the philosophy.They are able to define their relationship on a theological level.
What does that mean?Wow. Christians assume the supernatural exists. Islam assumes the supernatural exists. Therefore to assume the supernatural exists is to assume Islam is true. Can you see how unhelpful this is to the discussion.
Yes, because it is wrong. Christians assume that their understanding of the supernatural exists, muslims assume that their understanding of the supernatural exists. Without specifying the understanding, you cant tell whether someone who believes in the supernatural believes islam or christianity (etc) exists.Methodologically, yes. I.e. You operate under the assumptions for the purpose of the investigation.
So, methodologically, science accepts these assumptions?Well they don't amount to that but I would much rather focus on your claim that science (a method) and scientism (a philosophical position), are both either a method or a philosophical position.
That claim comes from the observation that the empirical assumptions underlying science amount to saying "the supernatural doesn't exist".And once we developed the technology and prerequisite theory to investigate abiogenesis, the reasonable theist would say "My mistake, I shouldn't have used God as a gap-filler, and I fully accept that it is a scientific matter". The burning bush, however, is not a gap-filler. It is not something that explains an event that science might somehow uncover later on. And even if it somehow does, a theist, like myself, can admit they were wrong about the issue.
So, after all this time, you admit that it is a god of the gaps position? That theistic belief for a theistic scientist sits at the constantly moving boundaries of scientific understanding?If it produced any observable phenomenon we could study, sure. But it doesn't. It is as unobservable as the invisible panda that orbits pluto.
Can we not use what we have previously examined to see if these claims can be predicted by them? Ie: we cant observe the invisible panda orbiting Pluto, but we have observed pandas, We have studied light and we have tested rockets for space travel. Couldn't we use what we know about them to determine the possibility that there is an invisible panda floating Pluto.You have pointed out they are different, but you have not pointed out why they aren't analogous. Why is my analogy inappropriate?
Science is a method for testing and modelling the universe, which makes empirical assumptions about the universe. Military tactics is a method for undertaking military conflicts, which does not make those empirical assumptions. They simply dont compare to each other, they dont encompass the same assumptions about the universe or requirements of their adherents.You did separate the paragraph. You separated it into sentences, and responded to one of those sentences. Like what I am doing now. See how frustrating it is?
I didn't separate the paragraph. I quoted, and responded, to "Can I ask: Do you believe that, if you admit the difference between a method and a philosophical stance/argument, that your atheism will be weakened, or vulnerable to attack? It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of." in its entirety.And they can accept that they are not using the scientific method.
Which would be hypocritical and unscientific of them.Science is inspired by skepticism and empiricism. I don't know how you can argue with that. And science is an application of those ideas, but that does not mean science is equivalent to those ideas. Financial modelling is an application of maths. This doesn't mean maths is equivalent to financial modelling.
I didn't say it was equivalent to those ideas, so I dont know what you are actually refuting here.So you accept that not existing is not metaphysically identical to not interfering? Great. They can perform science under the assumption that the supernatural will not interfere, an assumption that is scientifically equivalent to the assumption that the supernatural does not exist, while still drawing a metaphysical distinction. A stance which might be described as cognitively dissonant, but not logically inconsistent.
How can something metaphysically exist but scientifically not exist? This is why I hate philosophy, it gets up its own ass and forgets that we can conceptualise and define a great deal more things that actually exist and that not every question we can create is actually sensical (ie, it might make sense in our made up grammatical syntax, but not in describing anything actually real).0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I dont see how it doesn't. Doesn't any claim, technically, predict the thing its claiming?
A prediction is the consequence you wish to observe in experiment.It contradicts your point that the scientific method isn't a point of view. If a method provides a particular set criteria under which you should examine and test something (a point of view), and philosophy describes that same point of view, then acceptance of the method amounts to the same as acceptance of the philosophy.
And as I have said before, there is a difference between a metaphysical claim about the existence of the supernatural, and a methodological approach to observable phenomena. Science makes no metaphysical claims.What does that mean?
Read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for an example of a theological exploration of what it means to have a relationship with God.Yes, because it is wrong. Christians assume that their understanding of the supernatural exists, muslims assume that their understanding of the supernatural exists. Without specifying the understanding, you cant tell whether someone who believes in the supernatural believes islam or christianity (etc) exists.
And without specifying their beliefs, you can't tell whether someone who accepts scientific results accepts scientism. I accepts all of science, but I do not hold that science is an authoritative method for investigating nihilism vs. solipsism, or metaphysical, ontological claims. Hence I accept science and reject scientism.So, methodologically, science accepts these assumptions?
Yes, insofar as science is the rigorous investigation of things we can know through our senses.That claim comes from the observation that the empirical assumptions underlying science amount to saying "the supernatural doesn't exist".
It doesn't. Empiricism says we can only know things through our senses, as opposed to, say, revelation or tradition. It makes no metaphysical claim about the supernatural, only epistemological claims about what we can know.So, after all this time, you admit that it is a god of the gaps position? That theistic belief for a theistic scientist sits at the constantly moving boundaries of scientific understanding?
I said "The burning bush, however, is not a gap-filler. It is not something that explains an event that science might somehow uncover later on." If, at some later stage, we find a piece of the Bible which states "And Lo, the bush did leave elevated levels of hydrogen peroxide in the nearby vicinity, which would last for three thousand years", then I will admit I was wrong.Can we not use what we have previously examined to see if these claims can be predicted by them? Ie: we cant observe the invisible panda orbiting Pluto, but we have observed pandas, We have studied light and we have tested rockets for space travel. Couldn't we use what we know about them to determine the possibility that there is an invisible panda floating Pluto.
This invisible panda is not only invisible to EM radiation. It does not couple to any physical field or laws.Science is a method for testing and modelling the universe, which makes empirical assumptions about the universe. Military tactics is a method for undertaking military conflicts, which does not make those empirical assumptions. They simply dont compare to each other, they dont encompass the same assumptions about the universe or requirements of their adherents.
Generals carry out military tactics under the assumption that they will be effective. This does not mean generals are militarists. Scientists carry out science under the assumption that it will yield information. This does not mean all scientists subscribe to scientism.I didn't separate the paragraph. I quoted, and responded, to "Can I ask: Do you believe that, if you admit the difference between a method and a philosophical stance/argument, that your atheism will be weakened, or vulnerable to attack? It is the only explanation for your increasingly contrived denial of an incredibly simple difference that I can think of." in its entirety.
My apologies. After reading the post again, I see that you did quote the entire paragraph.Which would be hypocritical and unscientific of them.
I thought we had dealt with the hypocrisy issue. It is bordering on a JC-ism at this stage. So once again, why are they hypocritical when they are not espousing any belief or system as virtuous?I didn't say it was equivalent to those ideas, so I dont know what you are actually refuting here.
Your claim that, because scientists might adopt some assumptions that are shared by a philosophical ideology like scientism, that science and scientism are the same. Science is not scientism for the same reason science is not empiricism.How can something metaphysically exist but scientifically not exist? This is why I hate philosophy, it gets up its own ass and forgets that we can conceptualise and define a great deal more things that actually exist and that not every question we can create is actually sensical (ie, it might make sense in our made up grammatical syntax, but not in describing anything actually real).
We have only said that not existing is indistinguishable from not interfering. I.e. You can assume the supernatural doesn't exist, or doesn't interfere and the investigation will be the same. Science makes no metaphysical claim.0 -
A prediction is the consequence you wish to observe in experiment.
Is there not an implicit prediction in every claim?And as I have said before, there is a difference between a metaphysical claim about the existence of the supernatural, and a methodological approach to observable phenomena. Science makes no metaphysical claims.
Does science even recognise the metaphysical?Read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for an example of a theological exploration of what it means to have a relationship with God.
No, I'm not going to read someone else opinion in order for you to explain yours. In what way is "defined on a theological level" different from completely made up?And without specifying their beliefs, you can't tell whether someone who accepts scientific results accepts scientism. I accepts all of science, but I do not hold that science is an authoritative method for investigating nihilism vs. solipsism, or metaphysical, ontological claims. Hence I accept science and reject scientism.
I do not recognise that there is a meaningful question if it cant be expressed scientifically. If the entire universe is actually measurable and consistent, and you ask a question that cannot be represented in terms of that measurability and consistency, then your question isn't about anything that effects the universe.Yes, insofar as science is the rigorous investigation of things we can know through our senses.
So science does make assumptions about the universe?It doesn't. Empiricism says we can only know things through our senses, as opposed to, say, revelation or tradition. It makes no metaphysical claim about the supernatural, only epistemological claims about what we can know.
Thats empiricism, we are talking about the empirical claims underlying science. The claim that the universe is measurable and consistent rejects the supernatural.I said "The burning bush, however, is not a gap-filler. It is not something that explains an event that science might somehow uncover later on." If, at some later stage, we find a piece of the Bible which states "And Lo, the bush did leave elevated levels of hydrogen peroxide in the nearby vicinity, which would last for three thousand years", then I will admit I was wrong.
So it is a gap filler, but you dont expect the gap to be filled?This invisible panda is not only invisible to EM radiation. It does not couple to any physical field or laws.
Then in what way is it a panda (which does couple to fields, laws etc). In what way is the subject of this claim indistinguishable from not existing?Generals carry out military tactics under the assumption that they will be effective. This does not mean generals are militarists. Scientists carry out science under the assumption that it will yield information. This does not mean all scientists subscribe to scientism.
That doesn't really get my point. That some scientists dont fully accept science doesn't make it comparable to military tactics.I thought we had dealt with the hypocrisy issue. It is bordering on a JC-ism at this stage. So once again, why are they hypocritical when they are not espousing any belief or system as virtuous?
They are being hypocritical with respect to the necessary underlying assumptions of the scientific method. They accept them when they have to, but abandon them in areas of scientific ignorance, despite the assumptions not being limiting themselves according to our scientific advancement.Your claim that, because scientists might adopt some assumptions that are shared by a philosophical ideology like scientism, that science and scientism are the same. Science is not scientism for the same reason science is not empiricism.
I claim that scientism is those philosophical assumptions, and that acceptance of scientism and acceptance of science (and its underlying assumptions) amounts to the same thing.0 -
There is only one part of this discussion that is not some form of digression. I will deal with that first.I claim that scientism is those philosophical assumptions, and that acceptance of scientism and acceptance of science (and its underlying assumptions) amounts to the same thing.
Science does not require you to accept the underlying assumptions as true. It requires you to operate - to carry out a systematic method of investiagion - using the assumptions. They are methodological assumption. I.e. They pertain to the method of science, and not some metaphysical study. Afterwards, instrumentalists, the realists, the positivists, and other philosophical schools of thought can argue over the truth of scientific claims and assumptions.
Also, you are conflating scientism with empricism. The methodological assumptions of science are those of empiricism, not scientism, or even materialism/naturalism.
---
The rest of the post is less relevant. I will continue to respond to the points below if they can be tied back to my incredibly obvious point that "a method" and "a philosophical opinion about the scope of the method" are different things. If not, I won't pay them much further attention. If there is anyone other than the moderators reading this discussion, I want them to be clear that my point is a simple one.Mark Hamill wrote: »Is there not an implicit prediction in every claim?
No. Not in any scientific sense.Does science even recognise the metaphysical?
It does not recognise the metaphysical in the same sense that maths does not recognise the empirical. It makes no metaphysical claims.No, I'm not going to read someone else opinion in order for you to explain yours. In what way is "defined on a theological level" different from completely made up?
I am not presenting my opinion. We are not arguing about whether it is completely made up.I do not recognise that there is a meaningful question if it cant be expressed scientifically. If the entire universe is actually measurable and consistent, and you ask a question that cannot be represented in terms of that measurability and consistency, then your question isn't about anything that effects the universe.
And that would be a form of scientism, a philosophical position. Science, on the other hand, is the investigation of observable phenomena under the assumption that such phenomena can be described with general rules and principles.
As an aside. I recognise meaningful questions that cannot be expressed scientifically. The question of whether there is any positive number n such that n < 0 is one that cannot be answered by science.So science does make assumptions about the universe?
Scientists make methodological assumptions. They do not make metaphysical claims about the supernatural.Thats empiricism, we are talking about the empirical claims underlying science. The claim that the universe is measurable and consistent rejects the supernatural.
There are no "empirical claims" underlying science. Science underlies established theories of empirical phenomena.So it is a gap filler, but you dont expect the gap to be filled?
I said it is not a gap filler, as there is no gap to be filled.Then in what way is it a panda (which does couple to fields, laws etc). In what way is the subject of this claim indistinguishable from not existing?
Scientifically, it is indistinguishable. Ontologically, a universe with an invisible panda is distinguishable from the universe with an invisible panda.That doesn't really get my point. That some scientists dont fully accept science doesn't make it comparable to military tactics.
The scientists do fully accept science. You are making a lot of claims, but seem to be unwilling to back them up with any kind of argument.They are being hypocritical with respect to the necessary underlying assumptions of the scientific method. They accept them when they have to, but abandon them in areas of scientific ignorance, despite the assumptions not being limiting themselves according to our scientific advancement.
Even if what you said were true, that would not be not hypocricy.0 -
Advertisement
-
I just thought I'd sum up at the start what this behemoth of a post is
trying to express:
1: The fact that a potentially infinite amount of evidence makes not a scientific claim,
2: Shifting responsibility to a dead man is not relevant at all to our
discussion, in fact it makes no sense considering the conversation
we're having,
3: Irrelevant "evidence" is not evidence of anything scientific
4: Two, or a potential infinite number of, simultaneous conclusions
are not science, they may be scientism, as shown below, but not
science.
5: Attributing the exact opposite argument to someone is not helpful.
I think these are the jist of what I've backed up below, if this summary
is in any way dishonest call me on it & I'll quote the place(s) where I'm
making the relevant claim:
Mark it's far too clear you're not reading me. This quote is evidence of this:Mark Hamill wrote: »sponsoredwalk wrote:What's more, & this is the real killer, I asked you to quote, to quote, your other evidence that I had ignored. You have not done this.
If you weren't too busy quoting the odd sentence of mine you felt you
could capitalize upon you'd have had the time to read the next three
sentences I wrote. I've colour-coded our posts to highlight the hilarity
of it all:Mark Hamill wrote: »Go back to the top of this post that I am quoting, and read the first of my posts you quoted (which itself quoted an early of my posts). Keep playing this childish game and on ignore you will go.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I explicitly said that this is the only piece of evidence you've presented
that I thought was worth the time to criticize. What's more, & this is the
real killer, I asked you to quote, to quote, your other evidence that I had
ignored. You have not done this. So if you can't even do this then I am
not spectacularly wrong am I? But we'll just be extra careful, at
the start of this post you quoted an earlier comment of yours.
If you are going to argue that this was what I ignored you're not only
wrong but the comment is dealing specifically with horticulture (which is
what I've been responding to) so it's just false.
Notice how the purple, me being careful, was predicting your "childish"
comment. Notice how the red not only predicted you referring to the
very start of your post but also explaining to you why you'd be false to
pull this deceitful argument. Notice how the blue analytically refers to
you referring to your own earlier comment, I mean quantum mechanics
doesn't even get so precise in it's predictions :pac: Not only did I call you
wrong for referring, in general, to me ignoring your quote (of yourself)
but I also had to make a distinction, i.e. to mention horticulture, just to
make even clearer the fact that I hadn't ignored what you quoted.
But what is the comment I've already responded to, just to be crystal
clear:"With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself ,
that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but
not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating
the entire experience. A simple scientific explanation is given for all parts
of the claim, its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't apt.""With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself ,
I've explained how ludicrous, how utterly ridiculous, it is to even need to
discount something so trivial - let alone with horticulture :pac: To even
assume this question is relevant is to create a logical nightmare. I've
already explained, in detail, what this logical nightmare is but you chose
to ignore the substance of what I said & refer to it as an 'elongated rant'.
It's really no wonder you think I haven't responded to you when you are
not bothering to read me & think of what I'm saying as rants.
But there's even more that you still haven't gauged about thisMark Hamill wrote: »obvious but necessary conclusion you need to make.
You may as well have also invoked sociology as scientific evidence that
the supposed witness was, in fact, breathing air that day as well. Why?
Because sociologists deal with people. People are studied in the related
science of psychology. Some areas of psychology deal with brain
psychology. We know from brain psychology that the brain needs a
supply of oxygen in order to function. Hey, this is alsoMark Hamill wrote: »an obvious but necessary conclusion you need to make.
so therefore the authority of sociology is 'scientific evidence', one of the
many phantom strands of supporting evidence of our hypothesis. The
idea that we need evidence to discount something so obvious is to,
if we're being at all consistent, logical, careful, etc... etc..., also make
clear that we must also account for the other "obvious but necessary"
things involved in this scenario. You just discredit yourself by focusing on
this one, out of the many, many, "obvious but necessary" things we need
to account for, all equally irrelevant - for to question the veracity of any
of them is to assume such falsities we make it crystal clear we're not
serious. In fact there is so much wrong with this idea of yours that
even Feynman is able to tell you why it's wrong:
When he talks about the context involved when the person slipped on
ice in his example, Feynman's making a point about the level of necessary
detail involved in explaining a particular event. Your horticulture is the
kind of "obvious but necessary" information only a martian would require,
because the martian isn't aware of the logical nightmare that would
spring forth by needing to confirm thatthe bush didn't speak by itself
clear by the exclusion of the other "obvious but necessary" things you
excluded in your response to morbert's request for a way to scientifically
determine an answer to this question. Entertaining such nonsense isn't
worth anyone's time. I mean honestly, the need to discount whether or
not the bush spoke by itself is to also say that we also need scientific
evidence to determine whether or not they were breathing air that day
too, along with a host of other things, but - in beautifully circular fashion -
we quickly remember that for us we know we create instant logical
nightmares assuming that these issues are in any way questionable.
Doesn't get any simpler in it's ridiculousness, I can't repeat the same
thing over again with more detail & more justification I'm sorry, I have
a limit.
Double points if you figure out why I picked sociology[hint: You used a in your last post to me when
we were discussing what became my motivation]
What about the rest of the comment I've already responded to, despite
you not recognizing it:that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but
not being burnt)
"evidence" of psychology until we have a definite, a definite, answer to
the psychology of the person. What is the point of me entertaining your
guesses, let alone your conclusions based off your guesses? If we're
being serious I'm going to apply the "evidence" you mentioned here to
see how we can even say anything about the bush being on fire. I've
made it explicitly clear I'm not interested in your guesses about the
psychology due to the obvious flaws with it so I'm going to try to apply
what could potentially, that is until we pierce the veil of vague authority,
help us to conclude anything about the fire. Remember, you said that
we could conclude X based off your evidence, I give you the benefit
of the doubt in thinking you're not basing your conclusions based on the
evidence of guesses, obviously I was wrong to give you the benefit of the
doubt :pac:
Furthermore, the idea that we can conclude anything based on your
evidence is so ridiculous I really don't believe you said it. I mean can
we conclude that there are parallel universes now because we have
evidence in the form of mathematics that says it's possible? Obviously
not, in both cases - your guesses about psychology & guesses based off
of a lot of mathematical consistency in string theory - there are
indications that both conclusions are possible, obviously a lot less of a
possibility in one case but I'll give you a good argument at least.
So in giving you the benefit of the doubt & thinking you were not making
ridiculous affirmative claims based off of highly speculative "evidence" I
did not ignore the paragraph you referred to, but in your line of thought
I obviously did because I didn't refute what I consider self-refuted by
it's very nature, more of this "obvious but necessary" line of thought.Mark Hamill wrote: »Strawman. I never claimed that horticulture told us anything about the fire.
I'm aware of that now, again I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I
apologize. Telling us that your speculation on the psychology of the
supposed individual can help us conclude anything about the fire,
(remember, you did say we could conclude:"With my evidence we can conclude that the bush didn't speak by itself ,
that it wasn't on fire (assuming the claim is that the bush was on fire but
not being burnt) and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating
the entire experience.
is a level I'm not prepared to descend to for obvious reasons. Or did
you have some other non-psychological, non-horticultural, evidence
that you based your conclusions on?and that the witness was fully capable of hallucinating
the entire experience.
of an infinite number of possible explanations. I thought I made this fact
clear.A simple scientific explanation is given for all parts
of the claim, its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't apt."
it but it contains something so ridiculous that the only way you could
make a claim like this is if you weren't paying attention to the
conversation:Then let's change the scenario a little bit to illustrate my point. How would scientists analyse a burning bush that only spoke thousands of years ago?
You are supposed to be defending the claim that we, 2000 years later,
can scientifically analyze the burning bush scenario - when the witness,
assuming there was a witness, is dead. So with this in mind how could
you seriously say that "its up to the claimant to now show why they aren't
apt"? This just makes no sense other than as a rhetorical cop out.Mark Hamill wrote: »sponsoredwalk wrote:It's not scientific evidence to say that a person was hallucinating just
because some people hallucinate. I dare you to make that argument
with a straight face to a psychologist :pac:
Must have been a different Mark Hamill who said:Mark Hamill wrote: »we know that people can lie about events like this, we know that people can hallucinate events like this. Both these possibilities fit the evidence, so without further evidence to contradict, they are both acceptable conclusions.
So scientistic standards not only allow for two possible conclusions for one
event, they also simultaneously argue that both of these conclusions are
only possibilities. Perfectly sensible... Unlike scientism, science does not
allow two conclusions for one event as both being what happened. This
quote of yours really says it all I think, I couldn't inform people about
what scientism stands for any better. I guess this is how advanced
scientism is, the relativity of interpretations is something my
pre-sciensteinian brain hasn't grappled with :pac:
As to what you said, I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is anything but
pure deceit. It's not up to the claimant it's up to you, if we were
having a different conversation where you weren't saying that we, 2000
years later, could scientifically analyze this burning bush scenario then
you might not be trying to deceive us with comments like this & instead
be making a valid point. Shifting responsibility to a dead man here is no
help when you've told us we can be scientific about this without the help
of the supposed dead man. It's the British libel law approach, tell us
the claimant is making a scientific claim, despite not a single word
existing of him ever saying that, & then using the system to argue
that it's actually up to the claimant to disprove the statement only
you've ever made :pac:Mark Hamill wrote: »sponsoredwalk wrote:More vagueness, explain to us why it's less likely that the person was hallucinating as opposed to the claim that the person was actually insane, or maybe the person was lying?
I asked you to explain to us why it's less likely that scenario A is less
likely than scenario B, or C, or D, or E, or F. To say something scientific
we need to be able to distinguish out of the space of possiblities why
something is more likely than the other, especially when there are an
infinite number of possibilities. How could I be attributing to you an
argument that you were picking A = hallucination over B = lying, C =
insane or D = fooled, when I mentioned the exact examples you gave
in this very quote & I said in my last postwell if you can't even distinguish between 6 scenarios, or even more we
can just invent, then this is not science, it's - to repeat the phrase -
guesswork.
think I was attributing any one of the scenarios to you, I mean it's the
exact opposite of my argument. My point was that you cannot
distinguish between scenario A, or B, or C, or D, or E, or F. That is the
whole point, the complete opposite of attributing scenario A, or B,... to
you. Now here is a deep fact about this argument, you are trying to tell
us that you can scientifically determine anything about this event. This is
simply false if you can't even distinguish one amongst a no. of scenarios
reaching ∞, & other scenarios we could just invent. It's fair to say we're
dealing with a scientific issue if there are maybe 3 possible explanations
all backed up with relevant evidence, it's not scientific to say an infinite
number of scenarios as possible explanations is science.Mark Hamill wrote: »In this case, those possibilities are all we have, without more evidence. We dont say we know what happened for sure with the claim, but each possibility is more likely than the claim itself.
Your 'evidence' allows for an infinite number of possible scenarios. I mean
I emphasize the number 6 because they are distinct enough, but to be
pedantic about it we can change the variables so as to allow for an infinite
number of possibilities (Could have been a talking hay pile, could have
been a talking stone, could have been a talking cat, could have been
anything, who knows how many way the story has changed through time,
maybe the christians changed the story from a talking snake to avoid
confusing the illiterate masses of the day due to the similarities with the
snake in the garden of eden, there's plenty of evidence of them purposely
doing things like this so who knows??? I gave 'evidence' of this as well :pac:).Mark Hamill wrote: »Accurate or not, you have attempted to portray my entire argument as being purely in terms of the horticultural evidence, multiple times. Its not just a case that you think this is only bit of substance, you have continuously tried to portray everything else I said in terms of horticulture, despite how crazy it was.
There are three reasons for this, first is your devotion vagueness which
leaves me no choice but to eliminate the possibility you were trying to
argue horticulturally, the second is that it's the only claim you're making
that could be considered (until we pull back the veil of vagueness)
scientifically & third that I really thought you weren't basing conclusions
on subjective guessing. Mix the authority of big sounding words with
vague references to "evidence", especially when the word "conclude" is
used & I've just got no choice.
Again, since you're supposed to be arguing that this can be scientifically
examined seriously I'm going to consider the scientific evidence you've
been offering. In your devotion to vague arguments I've had to do your
work for you & have tried to apply horticulture to this argument, since
you're the one who brought it up. I honestly cannot believe you were
using psychology to tell us anything about the fire given it's ridiculously
uncertain status due to it's inherent variability.
Furthermore, apply your own logic to someone who doesn't believe in
the real numbers. If they offer up some faulty proof as part of a paper
that is chock full of 'logical' arguments for why they think the real
numbers don't exist, & the referee totally ignores those arguments &
focuses solely on the proof - would you waste you're time listening to
the person complain that the referee only focused on the proof & not the
logical arguments? Replace this with a physicist refereeing a paper on
the non-existence of parallel universes or whatever. I said I wouldn't
waste my time on your other 'scientific evidence'. You have still offered
us absolutely no way to discern between at least 6 equally likely
contenders for the spot of 'scientific fact' as regards this question.
Instead the admittance that many explanations is acceptable for our
conversation & that continual attempts to shirk responsibility to a dead
man after originally claiming we could do it here & now also makes sense,
somehow....Mark Hamill wrote: »So now you are saying that a horticulturist wouldn't be able to tell you if a plant could talk, that the people who grow and cultivate plants wouldn't know if they had the ability to make conversation ? Are you f*cking kidding me?
Oh good god, that's not what I said at all.Mark Hamill wrote: »Do you understand how science works? Because you really aren't showing it at all. These guesses? They're called hypothesis and what we do is see if these hypotheses are supported by any evidence. If we get an hypothesis supported by all the evidence (and assuming there is plenty of evidence) we can accept this hypothesis as being reasonably likely to be true. In our case we have multiple hypotheses, which all support the evidence, which all dont require us to throw out everything we know about plant biology, so scientifically, all we do is offer them as possibilities and request more evidence so that we can eliminate them. I would have thought only the likes of JC and Dead One would get science as wrong as you are.
Again, you said we'd be able to scientifically determine the scientific
veracity of this claim 2000+ years later. Thus far all you've offered us
is a potentially infinite number of explanations & vague hypothetical's
none of which I am unaware of.Mark Hamill wrote: »I would have thought only the likes of JC and Dead One would get science as wrong as you are.
Mistyped? I don't know how you can equate me to JC in any way
considering how much time I wasted pointing out, in far more
excruciating detail than I've shown here, how every statement of his
was contradicting previous statements, how every single sentence
was incorrect using studies & links to back every claim up, A big
waste of time I admit but you really musn't have seen the amount
of this. I've purposely stayed out of the BCC thread in that forum
because I know it would become unmanageable with more than one
to deal with :pac: I'm proud of that thread in the way you'd be proud of
a scar, so honestly you really must not have seen it at all in making this
claim :pac: Furthermore I do find it hilarious to claim I'm getting science
wrong seeing as your only justification, in the spirit of the scientific
method, nothing but an assertion ignoring the very real fact about
the 6 possibilities. What's even more amazing though is in this paragraph
you refer to these as hypotheses, while I've got your own quotes in the
very same post calling fewer than 6 hypotheses scientific conclusions :pac:Mark Hamill wrote: »You dont know that the plant was acting under abnormal circumstances, all you have is a claim, so you cant assume that it was abnormal circumstances. We can assume it was normal circumstances, and examine other possibilities for what happened, possibilities that dont require talking plants.
Oh good god, we'll give this argument a name now. We'll call it the plant
fallacy, it's a fallacy because, as I explained in the famous "elongated
rant", if we even pretend that the plant was involved in this situation as
anything other than a vector of god or normal we open up a can of logical
nightmare. Either the plant was acting under abnormal circumstances
or the circumstances of the plant are totally irrelevant. Jesus I don't
know how tautologically clear this is, in all possible scenarios the
plant acting normally is excluded just as the we ignore how green the
grass of the first garden true north of the supposed area was in 1874.
So again, what I quoted was an argument from the authority of irrelevant
evidence. Whats far more revealing is your response here in no way
justifies your earlier statement but instead just tries to save face with
an (already discredited) argument. I've given plenty of reasons why
normal circumstances are completely irrelevant, you've offered nothing
but the negation of my statement with an argument which my original
reasoning already dismissed as ridiculous.Mark Hamill wrote: »I said a dozen posts ago that when examining a supernatural claim, you must alter it to make it falsifiable, so that you can eliminate possibilities. If you claim that you cant do this, then you are saying that any claim worded to include the supernatural cannot be tested, which causes some pretty damn obvious problems for anything we have, do or will test, as you can word any claim to involve the supernatural, if you like. You inability to see that I was just being pedantic by invoking horticulture just makes you look the fool, not me.
You weren't pedantic enough, a very revealing fact. Also I would love
to read where this claim falsifiable. I doubt you made it falsifiable yet
as you've offered us up at least four potential explanations from
psychology, all equally untestable because, as we know from the
science of plumbing, that because things erode therefore the brain
matter of the person in question has eroded. How we run falsifiable
psychological tests on non-existent brain matter to allow us to make
a claim beyond the speculative is beyond me, read nothing thus far of
this kind & nothing but speculation on the periphery of this topic.
I'd love to read how you refute the potential infinite number of
explanations all not stemming from psychology, all modifiable to suit
my biases at will but still possible. Where you were educated that the
premises leading to such ridiculous conclusions is deserving of the label
of science I have no idea, but I'd love to read it.Mark Hamill wrote: »Explain to me what is different between saying "we know from biology that plants dont talk, therefore we can say the plant didn't talk" and "we know from psychology that people can hallucinate, therefore its possible the witness hallucinated"?
I asked you to present your best evidence & you respond with this
Furthermore that's not what you said, you chose the specific big science
word of horticulture. I've gone into this issue already, I like the switch to
biology here btwMark Hamill wrote: »Ah. now I see why you keep getting it wrong. You know how you only recognise the horticultural evidence and dont recognise any other evidence I have brought up? Well, you see I do recognise that other evidence, and all that evidence together allows me to make those individual conclusions. But I have no more based my conclusion that the witness could have hallucinated on horticulture than I based the conclusion that the bush didn't speak on psychology Such an empty headed leap of logic would require a run and jump for most people to reach.
Jesus
This is another very convenient comment about me full of vague
insinuations. Very convincing until you realize I've asked you more
than once to show me your best the evidence you've got besides
horticulture. All you've got are comments about lying, hallucination, all
stemming from psychology without a word as to how we, 2000+ years
later, would test any of this or potentially could. Instead I've seen shirking
of responsibility. Also, the very existence of so much potential evidence
invalidates it as being evidence. Notice that every change in my equally
likely scenarios is a vital change, if it was a hay pile instead of a bush
then okay, we've found out the truth it was possibility 8943828192 out of
the infinite space of possibilities. if it was a rock instead of a bush then
okay, we've found out the truth it was possibility 38423897219812 out of
the infinite space of possibilities. if it was a frog instead of a bush then
okay, we've found out the truth it was possibility 98748911111 out of
the infinite space of possibilities. if it was a waking, talking, aborting
rib instead of a bush then okay, we've found out the truth it was
possibility 9834732982377893982892389238957289527892437982374
8923748923742987823498 out of the infinite space of possibilities.
...
...
if it was half a bush instead of a bush then okay, we've found out the
truth it was possibility 32902389023849023849023842904889202323
out of the infinite space of possibilities. if it was half a hay pile instead of
a bush then okay, we've found out the truth it was possibility 82948239
out of the infinite space of possibilities....
....
....
We need more than maybe, possibly, might-be, potentially 'evidence'
to make an actual scientific claim. Until we have more than the maybe,
likely, hopefully... possibilities then it's not science, it's guessing. Again,
guessing isn't "Elephant" to 2 + 3 = _?
I don't make the rules about what really happened, I see no reason other
than personal bias (well founded in my opinion, but still bias no matter
how you sugar coat it) to say that a naturalistic explanation is what really
happened. A scientific explanation is limited if a non-natural explanation
is possible, surely that elementary logic makes sense despite your bias
to wilfully ignore that which cannot be put in scientific terms.Mark Hamill wrote: »(I may not be reading thsi point right, but assuming I am People will always have biases and beliefs, should we shy away from examining anything because our biases might get in the way? Or should we attempt to overcome them or make checks against them to weaken their hold?
That's really not what I meant, I was talking about assumptions & beliefs
far deeper than this, such as whether the concept of evidence is a concept
you're going to choose to even take seriously as a notion.Mark Hamill wrote: »It is confirmed that plants dont talk, that people can be fooled, can lie, exaggerate and hallucinate. Nothing offered by the claimant can be used to discount any of these possibilities and so its up to the claimant to offer more evidence. Its always up to the claimant to offer more evidence, science is a tool for testing for modelling, but you need to tell it what to test and model. Scientifically we have done what we can with what little evidence we were supplied and we have numerous reasonable possibilities that dont involve supernatural entities. This is only bad for the claimant, not science or the scientist.
You'd be totally right if you hadn't already claimed that we could
scientifically evaluate this 2000+ years later when the claimant is dead.
You have placed the onus on yourself to convince us that it's possible
to say something scientific about this particular event & thus far have
offered us nothing but vague statements like this:Mark Hamill wrote: »It is confirmed that plants dont talk, that people can be fooled, can lie, exaggerate and hallucinate.
as evidence that the claimant might have been lying, exaggerating or
hallucinating. Or are you even saying this? Apparently you're not, you're
not even making a statement this definite because you've scolded me for
what you thought was me attributing a definite argument to you.
But then again we see you also concluding such simultaneuous
occurrences, all very very confusing & at the same time perfectly
sensible All I know is that an infinite number of possible scenarios
is not scientific, you've said we can scientifically evaluate this issue -
but then quickly placing the ball back in the court of the dead witness
because you've found 4 (out of an infinite number of) possibilities.
I don't think this is good enough when you've led us to believe that
we'd be able to do it 2000+ years later.0 -
^^^ And the winner in the "Longest Post of The Year" category is....
...at two vertical yards, it's sponsoredwalk!0 -
-
Mark Hamill wrote: ». I would have thought only the likes of JC and Dead One would get science as wrong as you are.0
-
(Like my daily mail style headline?)
The story :
Tbh, I don't I like this. I'll admit I'm a romanicist but I do really believe education should be accessible to all walks of society. Either way, insert your usual anti-atheist stuff here.
Is this a response to Religious themed Universities?
Who feckin cares i am not planning on going there anyway:rolleyes:0 -
Science does not require you to accept the underlying assumptions as true. It requires you to operate - to carry out a systematic method of investiagion - using the assumptions. They are methodological assumption. I.e. They pertain to the method of science, and not some metaphysical study. Afterwards, instrumentalists, the realists, the positivists, and other philosophical schools of thought can argue over the truth of scientific claims and assumptions.
Science does require you to accept those underlying assumptions. Our disagreement is that I believe that science expects you to accept them regardless of whether or not you can test a specific claim, and you dont.Also, you are conflating scientism with empricism. The methodological assumptions of science are those of empiricism, not scientism, or even materialism/naturalism.
I am conflating science with scientism, because they amount to the same thing. Accepting the empirical assumptions of the scientific method is the same as accepting the philosophical position of scientism.No. Not in any scientific sense.
Maybe not in a scientifically testable sense, but there would still be a de facto predicition involved.It does not recognise the metaphysical in the same sense that maths does not recognise the empirical. It makes no metaphysical claims.
It makes no metaphysical claims because it doesn't recognise metaphysics as scientifically meaningful, so it makes no difference that it doesn't make such claims.I am not presenting my opinion. We are not arguing about whether it is completely made up.
We are discussing how someone can claim to believe in something they cant define (i'm not even talking about a deep, detailed, scientific definition, I'm talking about define something in some way that means they can be reasonably sure they are experiencing it and not mistaking something else for it).And that would be a form of scientism, a philosophical position. Science, on the other hand, is the investigation of observable phenomena under the assumption that such phenomena can be described with general rules and principles.
But, as I keep saying, accepting science or scientism will both lead you to the same philosophical position, that the universe is consistent, that phenomena can be described with general rules and principles.As an aside. I recognise meaningful questions that cannot be expressed scientifically. The question of whether there is any positive number n such that n < 0 is one that cannot be answered by science.
Then in what way is it meaningful? How could it be answered?Scientists make methodological assumptions. They do not make metaphysical claims about the supernatural.
Any assumption you make is a claim that you have accept, without testing or evidence.There are no "empirical claims" underlying science. Science underlies established theories of empirical phenomena.
So the scientific method of investigation is an empirical method and scientists make the assumption that empiricism is true when they are investigating (your words) but there are no empirical claims underlying science?I said it is not a gap filler, as there is no gap to be filled.
So you know then what happened with the burning bush?Scientifically, it is indistinguishable. Ontologically, a universe with an invisible panda is distinguishable from the universe with an invisible panda.
And ontology is meaningless to science. Science only cares about its method, and according to its method and according to its assumptions, the orbiting panda is indistinguishable from not existing, and so we have scientifically examined the claim.The scientists do fully accept science. You are making a lot of claims, but seem to be unwilling to back them up with any kind of argument.
I have already explained that they dont. They accept the method as far as it has been used, and then ignore all of its necessary assumptions and rules when they are unable to present a falsifiable claim to it. To then abandon the unfalsifiable claim when human scientific endeavor does finally catch is, while immeasurably more reasonable than the alternative, still a hypocritical act.Even if what you said were true, that would not be not hypocricy.
Why not? They claim to accept some principle in whole, but in reality operate with artificial limits designed to suit their own desires. They might not like it, but its a lie and its hypocrisy.0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »1: The fact that a potentially infinite amount of evidence makes not a scientific claim,
I dont know what you are talking about here?sponsoredwalk wrote: »2: Shifting responsibility to a dead man is not relevant at all to our discussion, in fact it makes no sense considering the conversation we're having,
The responsibility is always on the claimant, thats just how it goes.sponsoredwalk wrote: »3: Irrelevant "evidence" is not evidence of anything scientific
Its not irrelevant. If someone makes a claim concerning X, then what we know about X in general is relevant information.sponsoredwalk wrote: »4: Two, or a potential infinite number of, simultaneous conclusions are not science, they may be scientism, as shown below, but not science.
In science all we ever have is multiple competing hypotheses, with the one being supported by the most evidence (and most, if not all of the evidence) being declared a theory, the claim most likely to be true. Sometimes, because of claims with little enough evidence, we end up with multiple hypotheses all being supported by available evidence, and if no more evidence is forthcoming, then all we can do is present each hypothesis as possible. This, while may be not very useful as a result of its uncertainty, is the most scientifically honest approach.sponsoredwalk wrote: »5: Attributing the exact opposite argument to someone is not helpful.
Still going on about this? You explained your point, how I was reading you wrong, who cares? Move on already.sponsoredwalk wrote: »The rest of your post AKA "My Thesis: Why Mark is Wrong"
Come on, I'm not going to even try to respond to that, because what happens if I do? You just write another, longer, novella in response and so on and so on until we crash boards servers again. You managed to compress everything down at the start into a few straightforward points, leaving out the reams of empty ranting too, so lets try and keep going like this.
I keep meaning to ask, why do your posts come in this long format? Do you type up in word or notepad first or something?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Science does require you to accept those underlying assumptions. Our disagreement is that I believe that science expects you to accept them regardless of whether or not you can test a specific claim, and you dont.
Again, science requires you to operate - to carry out a systematic method of investiagion - using the assumptions. They are methodological assumption. I.e. They pertain to the method of science, and not some metaphysical study. Afterwards, instrumentalists, the realists, the positivists, and other philosophical schools of thought can argue over the truth of scientific claims and assumptions. You don't need to believe uniformitarianism is necessarily true on any ontological, metaphysical level.
I have ommitted some of the tangents unrelated to my point.
---We are discussing how someone can claim to believe in something they cant define (i'm not even talking about a deep, detailed, scientific definition, I'm talking about define something in some way that means they can be reasonably sure they are experiencing it and not mistaking something else for it).
I tendered an example of a definition/exploration of the relationship on a theological level. You implied it was all made up, which is irrelevant. Whether or not it is all made up, theologians define what they mean. And since the premise of God precludes, from the beginning, scientific investigation, it is not in conflict with science. This is where scientism would assert that theology should therefore be disregarded. Some scientists would agree. Other scientists, such as those who are Christian, would not. But it is blindingly obvious that the issue of what we can infer from the inability to apply the scientific method is different to the scientific method itself.But, as I keep saying, accepting science or scientism will both lead you to the same philosophical position, that the universe is consistent, that phenomena can be described with general rules and principles.
If you accept scientific assumptions as true, then it can lead to some form of materialism, or some weak form of scientism. If you accept them on a methodological level, i.e. if you accept them as suppositions for the scientific method, then it will not lead to the same philosophical position. I, for example, do not believe all phenomena can necessarily be understood with a set of principles, but I would still accept any scientific study, and I would still carry out the scientific investigation of any observable phenomena.Then in what way is it meaningful? How could it be answered?
The question could be answered within any relevant mathematical system, such as the real number system. The answer is no. The answer can be deduced. Science cannot provide an answer, as is it an inductive system. And questions like these are very meaningful, as their answers give us the structure of mathematical systems as theorems and lemmas. Scientists are thankful for this non-scientific field of study, as it has given them structures in which to unravel physical behaviour. Particle physics, for a long time, involved trawling through years of group-theory, a field explored and charted by mathematicians.So the scientific method of investigation is an empirical method and scientists make the assumption that empiricism is true when they are investigating (your words) but there are no empirical claims underlying science?
"Empiricism/empirical method" and "empirical claims" are different things. If you can't tie this back to the discussion in your next response, I am ending this particular tangent.And ontology is meaningless to science. Science only cares about its method, and according to its method and according to its assumptions, the orbiting panda is indistinguishable from not existing, and so we have scientifically examined the claim.
We have not scientifically examined the claim. We have identified the claim as scientifically meaningless, as we do not have any predictions to test. If someone wants to believe an invisible panda, which cannot be detected, orbits pluto, they can go right ahead, provided they admit it is not a scientifically established belief.I have already explained that they dont. They accept the method as far as it has been used, and then ignore all of its necessary assumptions and rules when they are unable to present a falsifiable claim to it. To then abandon the unfalsifiable claim when human scientific endeavor does finally catch is, while immeasurably more reasonable than the alternative, still a hypocritical act.
Admitting they were wrong is not a hypocritical act. Furthermore, their beliefs are defined such that there cannot be a falsifiable prediction. God will never produce a predictive framework.Why not? They claim to accept some principle in whole, but in reality operate with artificial limits designed to suit their own desires. They might not like it, but its a lie and its hypocrisy.
They claim to accept science in whole, but that merely means they accept the assumptions on a methodological level. Their limits are not artificial, and are tied to the demarcation problem of science. Also, your use of the word lie sounds a little hysterical.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I dont know what you are talking about here?
detail. If you can't grasp the point I was making at this stage I'm not
wasting my time explaining it again.Mark Hamill wrote: »The responsibility is always on the claimant, thats just how it goes.
I repeated my argument many times in my last post for why you're totally
dishonest in making this argument, must not even paying attention to the
conversation to seriously make an argument like this. If you can't grasp
the point I was making at this stage I'm not wasting my time explaining it
again.Mark Hamill wrote: »sponsoredwalk wrote:3: Irrelevant "evidence" is not evidence of anything scientific
I've spent a great deal of my time in this thread making it clear what I
meant with this statement, repeating previously unanswered arguments
& pointing out more of the ridiculous logic involved in trodding down this
path in my last post. Just telling me it's not irrelevant doesn't somehow
make it relevant. I've given more than enough arguments for why this
is just ridiculous so if you can't grasp the point I was making at this stage
(let alone offer up a refutative argument worth any merit) I'm not wasting
my time explaining it again.Mark Hamill wrote: »In science all we ever have is multiple competing hypotheses, with the one being supported by the most evidence (and most, if not all of the evidence) being declared a theory, the claim most likely to be true. Sometimes, because of claims with little enough evidence, we end up with multiple hypotheses all being supported by available evidence, and if no more evidence is forthcoming, then all we can do is present each hypothesis as possible. This, while may be not very useful as a result of its uncertainty, is the most scientifically honest approach.
I really took the pIss out of this argument in my last post, however that
time I was emphasizing the laxity of what constitutes a conclusion while
also constituting a hypothesis. Funny how this latest response magically
ignores such nonsense :pac: if you missed that & can't grasp the point
I was making, let alone even see the sheer insanity in such logic then
I'm not wasting my time explaining it again.Mark Hamill wrote: »Still going on about this? You explained your point, how I was reading you wrong, who cares? Move on already.
No, this was a new way you were getting the point I was making totally
wrong. That would be clear had you bothered to read my post.Mark Hamill wrote: »Come on, I'm not going to even try to respond to that, because what happens if I do? You just write another, longer, novella in response and so on and so on until we crash boards servers again.
Well if you had responded to the substance of my argument with
something like this latest example then of course that would happen.
You see in elementary conversations involving ideas the goal is not to
repeat arguments that have already been discounted it's to address
why the discounting of your arguments is wrong. Thus far not even a
tap of this has been offered, instead just a repeat of what has been
discounted. Every post I've added even more reasons for my arguments.
Crying that we'll crash the servers doesn't invalidate any of my points.Mark Hamill wrote: »You managed to compress everything down at the start into a few straightforward points, leaving out the reams of empty ranting too, so lets try and keep going like this.
Look what happened when I did that, you totally ignore the substance of
my arguments & respond with arguments I'd went into detail invalidating.
I posted that summary because I thought you'd actually read my novella
& use the 5 points to make it easier to respond to specific chapters in my
magnum opus. Big mistake giving you a bit of help in summarizing the
consequences of your own ridiculous arguments.Mark Hamill wrote: »I keep meaning to ask, why do your posts come in this long format? Do you type up in word or notepad first or something?
The reasons I'll give cannot be expressed scientifically so as such I doubt
you'll consider them meaningful. So I'm not going to waste my time
responding to a response to this post, I consider it nothing but a way
to ignore the arguments put forth in my above post.
in accordance with the, seemingly permissible, British Libel Law mode of
rhetoric in this thread I'll say that until my points are shown to be wrong
with an honest argument my claims are not only right they are scientific,
because that seems to be the only thing that one understands when under
the spell of scientistic dogmatism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, science requires you to operate - to carry out a systematic method of investiagion - using the assumptions. They are methodological assumption. I.e. They pertain to the method of science, and not some metaphysical study. Afterwards, instrumentalists, the realists, the positivists, and other philosophical schools of thought can argue over the truth of scientific claims and assumptions.
I dont know what you are arguing here. You are saying science requires you to operate under those assumptions, but that afterwards it doesn't matter what you do. Thats the same as saying that science expects you to accept those assumptions, but only as far as you test something, and afterwards it doesn't matter, which is what I was getting at. Either way we are just reiterating each others basic argument.You don't need to believe uniformitarianism is necessarily true on any ontological, metaphysical level.
In terms of the scientific method, there is no such thing as a metaphysical or ontological level, as these things dont agree with sciences underlying assumptions and are indistinguishable from not existing.I tendered an example of a definition/exploration of the relationship on a theological level. You implied it was all made up, which is irrelevant. Whether or not it is all made up, theologians define what they mean.
I didn't imply it was made up, i asked how anyone could tell the difference from it being real or made up (ie attributing something else to this non-existent relationship). And theologians dont define what they mean, not fully, because they dont define and (and everything else is presented in terms of god).And since the premise of God precludes, from the beginning, scientific investigation, it is not in conflict with science. This is where scientism would assert that theology should therefore be disregarded. Some scientists would agree. Other scientists, such as those who are Christian, would not.
Of course the theists dont, they have an emotional investment in their belief. This doesn't excuse them from not rejecting the hypothesis though (thats all theology is, at the end of the day, and hypothesis), as scientists are supposed to reject hypotheses that are unfalsifiable.But it is blindingly obvious that the issue of what we can infer from the inability to apply the scientific method is different to the scientific method itself.
No, but its a part of it. That inference is why we have the criteria of falsifiability in presenting hypotheses, so that we can model and test on things that aren't indistinguishable from not existing.If you accept scientific assumptions as true, then it can lead to some form of materialism, or some weak form of scientism. If you accept them on a methodological level, i.e. if you accept them as suppositions for the scientific method, then it will not lead to the same philosophical position.
And this is the hypocrisy, there is no reason to only accept them on a methodological level, nothing in the assumptions themselves implies they only apply on such a level. This arbitrary restriction comes from the individual, not the assumptions themselves.The question could be answered within any relevant mathematical system, such as the real number system. The answer is no. The answer can be deduced. Science cannot provide an answer, as is it an inductive system. And questions like these are very meaningful, as their answers give us the structure of mathematical systems as theorems and lemmas. Scientists are thankful for this non-scientific field of study, as it has given them structures in which to unravel physical behaviour. Particle physics, for a long time, involved trawling through years of group-theory, a field explored and charted by mathematicians.
Is maths not a formal science. I would include maths when I'm talking about science."Empiricism/empirical method" and "empirical claims" are different things. If you can't tie this back to the discussion in your next response, I am ending this particular tangent.
Science makes empirical assumptions, and as I said in my last post, assumptions are accepted, evidence-less claims, therefore, science expects you to accept empirical claims.We have not scientifically examined the claim. We have identified the claim as scientifically meaningless, as we do not have any predictions to test. If someone wants to believe an invisible panda, which cannot be detected, orbits pluto, they can go right ahead, provided they admit it is not a scientifically established belief.
And if they claim to be a scientist, and accept the scientific assumptions, this would make them hypocrites.Admitting they were wrong is not a hypocritical act. Furthermore, their beliefs are defined such that there cannot be a falsifiable prediction. God will never produce a predictive framework.
The hypocritical act is in placing arbitrary limits on where they can accept unfalsifiable claims (the admitting where they are wrong is a good thing). If its wrong to accept an unfalsifiable claim where you can devise a scientific test, then its wrong when you cant devise a scientific test, as the ability to devise tests is subjective not objective.They claim to accept science in whole, but that merely means they accept the assumptions on a methodological level. Their limits are not artificial, and are tied to the demarcation problem of science. Also, your use of the word lie sounds a little hysterical.
The demarcation of science is simply up to the point where we can devise testable hypotheses to test. This, obviously, is ever changing, as it changes with our growing capability to test, so the idea that you can say its ok to have an unscientific belief about something that we are unable to test today is artificial as what happens to this belief tomorrow when we do test it? It makes every belief contingent on the lack of evidence, which is unscientific, which makes them hypocrites.0
Advertisement