Atheist Elite College.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

It is not an assumption that the unexamined event is untestable. It is simply the case.

Unexaminable events tend to pretty indistinguishable from events that simply didn't happen. Scientifically, you could only conclude that you dont know what happened, you could not insert some magic event as a possibility, not if you want to remain scientific.

Morbert wrote: »

They are claiming that, if a belief is to be scientifically established, it must be affirmed by the scientific method. So long as they accept that their belief in a burning bush is unscientific, there is no issue.

So they are being irrational as well as hypocritical? (hypocritical because they are arbitrarily saying that the burning bush is unscientific)

Morbert wrote: »

And when all this has been done, and no "man behind the curtain" is ever found, we still can't conclude it is impossible for the event to have occured.

So we say we dont know, not that magic happened.

Morbert wrote: »

I am not advocating any God-of-the-gaps theology. Many theists consider such arguments to be weak at best. But the burning-bush case is not God-of-the-gaps.

Its pretty similar. Something we cant examine because of time passed or lack of suitable resources to eliminate all natural possible causes, so its assumed to be a magical event, whihc we cant ever examine scientifically?

Morbert wrote: »

Which is why methodological naturalism is not the assumption that supernatural entities don't exist. Methodological naturalism merely means you apply a methodology to investigate a phenomenon as if it has a natural explanation.

Whats the difference between a methodology which investigates phenomena as if supernatural entities dont exist and a methodology which assumes that supernatural entities dont exist? It doesn't look to me as if there is one, and you might say that people only need to assume that supernatural entities dont exist while adhering to the methodology, and outside they can do what they like, but I would see that as hypocritical.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Unexaminable events tend to pretty indistinguishable from events that simply didn't happen. Scientifically, you could only conclude that you dont know what happened, you could not insert some magic event as a possibility, not if you want to remain scientific.

They are not remaining scientific.

So they are being irrational as well as hypocritical? (hypocritical because they are arbitrarily saying that the burning bush is unscientific)

They are not being hypocritical. Whether or not they are being irrational is irrelevant to my point.

So we say we dont know, not that magic happened.

Nobody should claim that magic happened. Theists do not do this.

Its pretty similar. Something we cant examine because of time passed or lack of suitable resources to eliminate all natural possible causes, so its assumed to be a magical event, whihc we cant ever examine scientifically?

It's not about eliminating all natural causes. It's about not being able to investigate natural causes.

Whats the difference between a methodology which investigates phenomena as if supernatural entities dont exist and a methodology which assumes that supernatural entities dont exist? It doesn't look to me as if there is one, and you might say that people only need to assume that supernatural entities dont exist while adhering to the methodology, and outside they can do what they like, but I would see that as hypocritical.

I did not say anything about supernatural entities not existing. I presume you mean to ask the difference between a methodology which is used to find natural explanations, and a metaphysical position which asserts the explanation must be natural. The difference is quite obvious.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

They are not remaining scientific.

Which is what makes them hypocritical. It doesn't make any sense to abandon science simply to fit some (usually) egotistical urge to apply a supernatural cause to some event.

Morbert wrote: »

Nobody should claim that magic happened. Theists do not do this.

Magic, god, same difference. Magic is shorted than writing supernatural and essentially means the same thing.

Morbert wrote: »

It's not about eliminating all natural causes. It's about not being able to investigate natural causes.

If you cant investigate a natural cause, then you simply say I dont know, you dont get to insert a supernatural cause to fill the gap, its scientifically hypocritical, not to mention moronic. Until recently, humans didn't have teh ability or know-how to investigate lightning, so it was attributed to the gods but some people didn't just accept that it was supernatural and therefore out of the remit of scientific inquiry, they kept at it until a breakthrough was made.

Morbert wrote: »

I did not say anything about supernatural entities not existing. I presume you mean to ask the difference between a methodology which is used to find natural explanations, and a metaphysical position which asserts the explanation must be natural. The difference is quite obvious.

I dont see it. When undertaking the methodology, you must accept the metaphysical position (or why would you use the methodology?). To do this only when it suits you is what I see as hypocritical.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is what makes them hypocritical. It doesn't make any sense to abandon science simply to fit some (usually) egotistical urge to apply a supernatural cause to some event.

In your first sentence you accuse them of hypocrisy, but then in your second sentence you criticise them for matters completely unrelated to hypocrisy. It does not make them a hypocrite to "abandon science simply to fit some (usually) egotistical urge to apply a supernatural cause to some event." (which is not what they do by the way). But I have little interest in opinions about their demarcation. What I will correct you on is a) Conflating science with scientism, which you still haven't shown to be equivalent, and b) the incorrect use of words like "hypocrisy".

Magic, god, same difference. Magic is shorted than writing supernatural and essentially means the same thing.

While this language might be suitable for atheist intellectual masturbation (similar to the use of the word "brights"), the meaning of "magic" will be lost on theists. Is it really that hard to write supernatural?

If you cant investigate a natural cause, then you simply say I dont know, you dont get to insert a supernatural cause to fill the gap, its scientifically hypocritical, not to mention moronic. Until recently, humans didn't have teh ability or know-how to investigate lightning, so it was attributed to the gods but some people didn't just accept that it was supernatural and therefore out of the remit of scientific inquiry, they kept at it until a breakthrough was made.

You keep advocating the position of empiricism. You are preaching to the choir. I am saying science and scientism are not the same thing, and that, even if you find it arbitrary, they can fully accept the results of science, but at the same time believe in the supernatural.

I dont see it. When undertaking the methodology, you must accept the metaphysical position (or why would you use the methodology?). To do this only when it suits you is what I see as hypocritical.

Let's assume there is a God for a moment. Does this mean we have to reject all of science? Would you no longer get in your car for fear of it being swept away by a giant hand in the sky? Of course not. You would still recognise a pattern of regularity to the behaviour of things. You would still be able to appreciate the electromagnetic character of stars and planets, or the quantum nature of particles and modern technology. You would still be able to appreciate the fossil record, and what it tells us about the history of life. You would still be able to criticise creationists for their contrived misunderstanding of the scientific method. That is not hypocrisy. It makes no sense to claim it is.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

In your first sentence you accuse them of hypocrisy, but then in your second sentence you criticise them for matters completely unrelated to hypocrisy. It does not make them a hypocrite to "abandon science simply to fit some (usually) egotistical urge to apply a supernatural cause to some event." (which is not what they do by the way). But I have little interest in opinions about their demarcation. What I will correct you on is a) Conflating science with scientism, which you still haven't shown to be equivalent, and b) the incorrect use of words like "hypocrisy".

They are hypocritical because they use and trust in science only when it suits them. When something comes up that contradicts something they want to be true, then science is wrong, or in some area that it shouldn't. Science either works or it doesn't, you cant just pick and choose the situations. It would be like being a mathematician, except when you do your taxes where you say that 1+1=3, so that you get more tax back.

Morbert wrote: »

While this language might be suitable for atheist intellectual masturbation (similar to the use of the word "brights"), the meaning of "magic" will be lost on theists. Is it really that hard to write supernatural?

Is it really that hard to read magic? I dont care if the meaning is lost on theists, magic is the shortest and most straightforward way of describing it and I see no reason to sugar coat it to suit their fragile egos (especially when I'm calling them out for being hypocrites for abandoning science to suit their fragile egos).

Morbert wrote: »

You keep advocating the position of empiricism. You are preaching to the choir. I am saying science and scientism are not the same thing, and that, even if you find it arbitrary, they can fully accept the results of science, but at the same time believe in the supernatural.

I never said they couldn't, I said they are hypocrites for it. Its not rational to insert magical causes for a phenomenon simply because you are unable to investigate it fully. It leads to all kinds of problems, not least of which what to do with your ego when someone comes along with a rational scientific explanation for what happened (look at the Atheism or Naturalism thread where an atheist poster with a belief in ghosts was given several different rational explanations for the phenomena he observed but he dismissed them out of hand, because they conflicted with his ego).

Morbert wrote: »

Let's assume there is a God for a moment. Does this mean we have to reject all of science? Would you no longer get in your car for fear of it being swept away by a giant hand in the sky? Of course not. You would still recognise a pattern of regularity to the behaviour of things. You would still be able to appreciate the electromagnetic character of stars and planets, or the quantum nature of particles and modern technology. You would still be able to appreciate the fossil record, and what it tells us about the history of life. You would still be able to criticise creationists for their contrived misunderstanding of the scientific method. That is not hypocrisy. It makes no sense to claim it is.

Actually yes, you do have to reject the scientific method (assuming this is a god capable of interfering in the universe). If this god exists, then every single thing you test is contingent on a massively complex unknown entity not interfering (beyond the initial interference of starting the universe with a rational set of universal laws) with the laws of the universe whenever he pleases (which, if you believe the oscars and the religious nuts, he does all the time). Everything you do will have a god sized margin of error on it, every result contingent on how much you prayed for it, versus how much your competitors prayed against it. It would be like trying to figure out the rules of a game being played with arbitrary random pieces that can be brought into or out of existence at any time, with the very interactions being determined by an unknowable third party.Nothing you do or discover would matter, because it could all change, without you realising (or your continued existence) without you even knowing about it.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are hypocritical because they use and trust in science only when it suits them. When something comes up that contradicts something they want to be true, then science is wrong, or in some area that it shouldn't. Science either works or it doesn't, you cant just pick and choose the situations. It would be like being a mathematician, except when you do your taxes where you say that 1+1=3, so that you get more tax back.

You've changed the subject. We are not talking about people who reject scientific findings. We are talking about people who accept scientific findings, but also believe in God. I.e. You are now claiming they are hypocrites because they reject science sometimes. It makes no sense to make this claim, as we are not discussing theists who reject science.

Is it really that hard to read magic? I dont care if the meaning is lost on theists, magic is the shortest and most straightforward way of describing it and I see no reason to sugar coat it to suit their fragile egos (especially when I'm calling them out for being hypocrites for abandoning science to suit their fragile egos).

Again, this is bordering on childish nonsense. You can continue to use the word, and I will continue to call you out for it.

I never said they couldn't, I said they are hypocrites for it. Its not rational to insert magical causes for a phenomenon simply because you are unable to investigate it fully. It leads to all kinds of problems, not least of which what to do with your ego when someone comes along with a rational scientific explanation for what happened (look at the Atheism or Naturalism thread where an atheist poster with a belief in ghosts was given several different rational explanations for the phenomena he observed but he dismissed them out of hand, because they conflicted with his ego).

I have no interest in your speculation on the egos of theists. But from the above, it seems you now concede that science and scientism are different things, but that you take issue with people who accept science but reject naturalism. Your use of the word hypocrite is still incorrect for reasons I mentioned in my previous post, but it is at least progress for you to recognise the difference between science and scientism, and to acknowledge that people can accept science, but believe in the supernatural (reject scientism).

Actually yes, you do have to reject the scientific method (assuming this is a god capable of interfering in the universe). If this god exists, then every single thing you test is contingent on a massively complex unknown entity not interfering (beyond the initial interference of starting the universe with a rational set of universal laws) with the laws of the universe whenever he pleases (which, if you believe the oscars and the religious nuts, he does all the time). Everything you do will have a god sized margin of error on it, every result contingent on how much you prayed for it, versus how much your competitors prayed against it. It would be like trying to figure out the rules of a game being played with arbitrary random pieces that can be brought into or out of existence at any time, with the very interactions being determined by an unknowable third party.Nothing you do or discover would matter, because it could all change, without you realising (or your continued existence) without you even knowing about it.

Now this is confusing. In your last paragraph, you agreed that they could accept science. But in your next paragraph you are saying they have to reject science. You are also saying nonsensical things like "Everything you do will have a god sized margin of error", when no science-accepting theist I know has ever had to wrestle with a "god sized margin of error". I work with several of them in research, and they have never had to wrestle with any such margins of error you are imposing on them. If you are truly claiming that, if you believed in God, you would "not be able to figure out the rules of the game", and hence not be able to get into your car, or use a mobile phone, or post a message on the internet because you couldn't figure out that these devices will work since God could interfere, then I don't know if your understanding of science or theology is more frightening.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

You've changed the subject. We are not talking about people who reject scientific findings. We are talking about people who accept scientific findings, but also believe in God. I.e. You are now claiming they are hypocrites because they reject science sometimes. It makes no sense to make this claim, as we are not discussing theists who reject science.

By believing in something like a talking burning bush (something which is contradicted by scientific findings) they are rejecting science .

Morbert wrote: »

Again, this is bordering on childish nonsense. You can continue to use the word, and I will continue to call you out for it.

Your call out amounts to telling me I should put a spin on my point so as not to offend some hypothetical theists. I dont care that reality might offend these people, magic, supernatural, god, it is what it is.

Morbert wrote: »

I have no interest in your speculation on the egos of theists. But from the above, it seems you now concede that science and scientism are different things, but that you take issue with people who accept science but reject naturalism. Your use of the word hypocrite is still incorrect for reasons I mentioned in my previous post, but it is at least progress for you to recognise the difference between science and scientism, and to acknowledge that people can accept science, but believe in the supernatural (reject scientism).

I have not conceded that science and scientism are different. To use science is to accept scientism, else why use science if you believe there to be a better way of rationalising the world?

Morbert wrote: »

Now this is confusing. In your last paragraph, you agreed that they could accept science. But in your next paragraph you are saying they have to reject science.

No I didn't. I didn't say anything about accepting science in the last paragraph. the first paragraph explains my point :"they use and trust in science only when it suits them".

Morbert wrote: »

You are also saying nonsensical things like "Everything you do will have a god sized margin of error", when no science-accepting theist I know has ever had to wrestle with a "god sized margin of error".

Theist not recognising inherent errors is pretty much why they are theists in the first place.

Morbert wrote: »

I work with several of them in research, and they have never had to wrestle with any such margins of error you are imposing on them. If you are truly claiming that, if you believed in God, you would "not be able to figure out the rules of the game", and hence not be able to get into your car, or use a mobile phone, or post a message on the internet because you couldn't figure out that these devices will work since God could interfere, then I don't know if your understanding of science or theology is more frightening.

I am claiming that if god exists, this is the case (and, as frightening as it would be, that is the case). Everything that exists and how it all interacts would be complete arbitrary and entirely changeable according to some impossible-to-understand will. Nothing would ultimately matter except that all powerful will and everything you learn is subject to immediate and arbitrary change. The fact that we can use science to figure stuff out and advance is more evidence that there is no outside interference, not evidence that people can un-hypocritically mish-mash rational and irrational ideologies and not cause problems.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By believing in something like a talking burning bush (something which is contradicted by scientific findings) they are rejecting science.

Please point to the "scientific findings" of investigations of the burning bush God used to speak to Moses.

Your call out amounts to telling me I should put a spin on my point so as not to offend some hypothetical theists. I dont care that reality might offend these people, magic, supernatural, god, it is what it is.

You are not making any sense. What spin am I asking you to put on your point so as not to offend people? Instead of trying to caricature my posts, address them. I am telling you to be clear and mature. "Magic", for example, can mean trickery, and is associated with theatre shows and deception.

I have not conceded that science and scientism are different. To use science is to accept scientism, else why use science if you believe there to be a better way of rationalising the world?

And I have explicitly told you that there are theists who not only accept all of science, but are actively engaged in scientific research. You have (incorrectly) labelled them as hypocrites (the word you're looking for is inconsistent), but even with this false charge, they are sill accepting science, but rejecting scientism. I do not know why you cannot grasp this remarkably simple point. It is as if you are trying to contrive your way out of acknowledging a mistake you made.

No I didn't. I didn't say anything about accepting science in the last paragraph. the first paragraph explains my point :"they use and trust in science only when it suits them".

Yes you did. You said "Actually yes, you do have to reject the scientific method.". And in your penultimate paragraph, you said "I never said they couldn't [accept science], I said they are hypocrites for it." So which is it? Are you claiming science and scientism are the same (and hence accepting science is equivalent to accepting scientism)? Or are you claiming scientism and science are difference (and hence we can accept one and reject the other), but that it is inconsistent to accept science but then to reject scientism?

Theist not recognising inherent errors is pretty much why they are theists in the first place.

This is a vague, unhelpful, statement. Are you saying theists don't recognise "inherent" errors in science? Are you implying they are incapable of differentiating a good science book from a bad science book, or of carrying out research in science? Or are you again derailing the discussion by taking pot-shots at the belief in the supernatural with useless one-liners?

I am claiming that if god exists, this is the case (and, as frightening as it would be, that is the case). Everything that exists and how it all interacts would be complete arbitrary and entirely changeable according to some impossible-to-understand will. Nothing would ultimately matter except that all powerful will and everything you learn is subject to immediate and arbitrary change. The fact that we can use science to figure stuff out and advance is more evidence that there is no outside interference, not evidence that people can un-hypocritically mish-mash rational and irrational ideologies and not cause problems.

Then yours is a unique theology worthy of creationists, and not at all shared by reasonable theists who have no issue with science. Who have confidence in their technology built from uniform scientific principles. Who do not believe everything is subject to immediate and arbitrary change. That you cannot grasp this is something I find hard to understand. Call it inconsistent (but not hypocritical) all you want, and I will agree with you to an extent (though it is not strictly logically inconsistent). But the fact remains that it is entirely possible to coherently accept science and reject scientism. Hence, science and scientism are not the same thing. Do you really believe a theist, when they get into a car, is thinking "I can't figure out why I'm doing this since everything is subject to immediate and arbitrary change."?

All you have to do is say "sorry I misspoke, I did not mean to say science and scientism are the same. I meant to say I find it poor form to have confidence in science, but to reject scientism." I would somewhat agree with that. But I cannot let your conflation of science and scientism slide.

So stop feeding me your opinion of theists, because if I keep having to correct your use of the word hypocrite it will detract from the point of this discussion. The point is your failure to grasp the difference between science and scientism highlighted in post #188. Atheists, in our enthusiasm, have a reputation for not thinking their position through. It is unfortunate, and stifles debate, but you are guilty of it.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

Please point to the "scientific findings" of investigations of the burning bush God used to speak to Moses.

Well you have horticultural science which would say that bushed do not have throats, larynxes, lungs or diaphragms (the usual things needed to have a voice) and that even things with a voice generally cant speak if on fire, none of this has to be specific to the case of Moses to be used against the case of Moses. Of course, someone who understands science will understand that its up to the person claiming that a speaking burning bush existed to prove it, not me to disprove it.

Morbert wrote: »

You are not making any sense. What spin am I asking you to put on your point so as not to offend people? Instead of trying to caricature my posts, address them. I am telling you to be clear and mature. "Magic", for example, can mean trickery, and is associated with theatre shows and deception.

So? Supernatural can mean unicorns, does that mean we dont use the word "supernatural" so as not to offend those who dont like the idea of burning bushes being associated with unicorns? I really dont understand the big deal here, you seem to be getting insulted on behalf so some hypothetical theist.

Morbert wrote: »

And I have explicitly told you that there are theists who not only accept all of science, but are actively engaged in scientific research. You have (incorrectly) labelled them as hypocrites (the word you're looking for is inconsistent)

No, the word is hypocrite, which merriam webster defines as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". Being inconsistent is a sign of being a hypocrite.

Morbert wrote: »

but even with this false charge, they are sill accepting science, but rejecting scientism.

The scientific method places no limits on what it can investigate and, in cases were there is insufficient evidence to investigate, doesn't accept or allow for baseless assumptions to be inserted. For someone to act contrary to this, is anti scientific, anti scientism and hypocritical.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes you did. You said "Actually yes, you do have to reject the scientific method.". And in your penultimate paragraph, you said "I never said they couldn't [accept science], I said they are hypocrites for it." So which is it? Are you claiming science and scientism are the same (and hence accepting science is equivalent to accepting scientism)? Or are you claiming scientism and science are difference (and hence we can accept one and reject the other), but that it is inconsistent to accept science but then to reject scientism?

You have misread the second quote, the part you inserted (in square brackets) is wrong. It should read "I never said they couldn't [accept scientific results], I said they are hypocrites for it". They are hypocrites for accepting scientific results (and even following the method) but only when it suits them. When something close to their personal beliefs come along, science is no longer adequate to investigate. You can even see this with theists who use near death experiences that reference their beliefs as evidence for their faith, but would say that NDEs that reference other beliefs are flawed.

Morbert wrote: »

This is a vague, unhelpful, statement. Are you saying theists don't recognise "inherent" errors in science? Are you implying they are incapable of differentiating a good science book from a bad science book, or of carrying out research in science?

I am saying that theists never recognise the full implications of what they believe, hence they can believe in god and use the scientific method and not recognise the two as inconsistent positions (NB: I'm not saying science contradicts god).

Morbert wrote: »

Or are you again derailing the discussion by taking pot-shots at the belief in the supernatural with useless one-liners?

Do you believe in the supernatural? Is that why you are taking offense?

Morbert wrote: »

Then yours is a unique theology worthy of creationists, and not at all shared by reasonable theists who have no issue with science. Who have confidence in their technology built from uniform scientific principles. Who do not believe everything is subject to immediate and arbitrary change. That you cannot grasp this is something I find hard to understand. Call it inconsistent (but not hypocritical) all you want, and I will agree with you to an extent (though it is not strictly logically inconsistent). But the fact remains that it is entirely possible to coherently accept science and reject scientism. Hence, science and scientism are not the same thing. Do you really believe a theist, when they get into a car, is thinking "I can't figure out why I'm doing this since everything is subject to immediate and arbitrary change."?

No and that is why they are hypocrites. You seem to reading into what I am saying and taking the implication that I am calling them scientifically incompetent, but I'm not, not at all. Ignoring the contradiction is necessary in order for them to use and trust the method (and I never said they didn't), but they do do it, and they do it because they dont really think about the full consequences of their beliefs.

Morbert wrote: »

All you have to do is say "sorry I misspoke, I did not mean to say science and scientism are the same. I meant to say I find it poor form to have confidence in science, but to reject scientism." I would somewhat agree with that. But I cannot let your conflation of science and scientism slide.

I still dont understand how its different. It still looks like "militant atheist" or "new atheist", another label designed to belittle and dismiss a group of intellectual opponents, in case using the implication of some mindless unquestioning adherence to some ideal.
Its like saying there is a difference between maths (counting) and "mathism" (the idea that you can count to any number)

Morbert wrote: »

So stop feeding me your opinion of theists, because if I keep having to correct your use of the word hypocrite it will detract from the point of this discussion.

Dispute =/= correct. If someone repeatedly acts inconsistently with their stated beliefs or intentions, then they are hypocrites.

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists, in our enthusiasm, have a reputation for not thinking their position through. It is unfortunate, and stifles debate, but you are guilty of it.

We may both be atheists, but thats all we have in common, dont try to tar me with your reputation.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well you have horticultural science which would say that bushed do not have throats, larynxes, lungs or diaphragms (the usual things needed to have a voice) and that even things with a voice generally cant speak if on fire, none of this has to be specific to the case of Moses to be used against the case of Moses. Of course, someone who understands science will understand that its up to the person claiming that a speaking burning bush existed to prove it, not me to disprove it.

Who said anything about larynxes, or diaphragms? Who said the voice was carried by the propagation of vibrations in the air? I didn't ask you for your personal evaluation of how the voice or the bush would be coupled to the laws of nature. I asked you for scientific investigations. In what scientific journal, in what pop-science book?

So? Supernatural can mean unicorns, does that mean we dont use the word "supernatural" so as not to offend those who dont like the idea of burning bushes being associated with unicorns? I really dont understand the big deal here, you seem to be getting insulted on behalf so some hypothetical theist.

It is not about being insulted. it is about being clear about what you mean. No theist would agree with the statement "a magic burning bush", so there is no reason to call it that.

No, the word is hypocrite, which merriam webster defines as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". Being inconsistent is a sign of being a hypocrite.

How are they acting in contradiction to his or her stated belief?

The scientific method places no limits on what it can investigate and, in cases were there is insufficient evidence to investigate, doesn't accept or allow for baseless assumptions to be inserted. For someone to act contrary to this, is anti scientific, anti scientism and hypocritical.

Again (and again and again) you are extending beyond science into scientism. Science says there is insufficient evidence to investigate. This means that, so long as a person acknowledges that their belief is not supported by science, they are not contradicting science. Science says it cannot be established with evidence or observation. The theist says it cannot be established with evidence or observation. Hence no contradiction. It is only when you venture in to scientism that you say, since we must base all our beliefs on what is or isn't scientifically established, we can't believe in a burning bush.

You have misread the second quote, the part you inserted (in square brackets) is wrong. It should read "I never said they couldn't [accept scientific results], I said they are hypocrites for it". They are hypocrites for accepting scientific results (and even following the method) but only when it suits them. When something close to their personal beliefs come along, science is no longer adequate to investigate. You can even see this with theists who use near death experiences that reference their beliefs as evidence for their faith, but would say that NDEs that reference other beliefs are flawed.

You say I misread the quote, but then describe it in exactly the same way I used it. They accept scientific results, and following the method, but they reject scientism/materialism/naturalism. Hence, science (a method of investigation and/or the results of such a method) is different to scientism (The stance that this method of investigation must always be applied). And yes, a theist that uses science to refute all NDE's but their own would be a hypocrite. But again we're nott alking about special cases. We're talking about whether or not a theist, in principle, can accept science and reject scientism. If they can, however ill-advised, then science and scientism are different. I shouldn't even have to go to such lengths, since the difference is obvious in the definition.

I am saying that theists never recognise the full implications of what they believe, hence they can believe in god and use the scientific method and not recognise the two as inconsistent positions (NB: I'm not saying science contradicts god).

Again, you are giving me your two cents on theism. The issue of contention is science and scientism.

Do you believe in the supernatural? Is that why you are taking offense?

I do not believe in the supernatural. Not only that, I think the term is ill-defined. It makes sense to speak of the nature of things, but not the super-nature of things. I am not taking offence.

No and that is why they are hypocrites. You seem to reading into what I am saying and taking the implication that I am calling them scientifically incompetent, but I'm not, not at all. Ignoring the contradiction is necessary in order for them to use and trust the method (and I never said they didn't), but they do do it, and they do it because they dont really think about the full consequences of their beliefs.

And supposing this inconsistency exists, do you see how the thing they accept (science) is different to the thing they reject (scientism), even if the acceptance of one and the rejection of another might be inconsistent.

I still dont understand how its different. It still looks like "militant atheist" or "new atheist", another label designed to belittle and dismiss a group of intellectual opponents, in case using the implication of some mindless unquestioning adherence to some ideal. Its like saying there is a difference between maths (counting) and "mathism" (the idea that you can count to any number).

As an aside, I think the use of the term "magic" is used to belittle and dismiss a group of intellectual opponents, but anyway: Surely you can see the difference between math and mathism. Mathism would only hold if we are allowed to skip numbers, as there are an uncountably infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. Or 0 and 1/2, or 0 and 10^-99. Counting makes no supposition about what is ultimately countable. So you can count away while still rejecting the idea that all numbers are necessarily countable.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

Who said anything about larynxes, or diaphragms? Who said the voice was carried by the propagation of vibrations in the air? I didn't ask you for your personal evaluation of how the voice or the bush would be coupled to the laws of nature. I asked you for scientific investigations. In what scientific journal, in what pop-science book?

What are you talking about? 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. We know that to hear a voice, you need the biological equipment to make a voice, which bushes do not have. A voice that doesn't involve vibrations in the air is simply one in your head and if you want it to be examined, you need to present some evidence that it wasn't made up or imagined (which is most likely, as we know people make stuff up and imagine things all the time), not me.

Morbert wrote: »

It is not about being insulted. it is about being clear about what you mean. No theist would agree with the statement "a magic burning bush", so there is no reason to call it that.

Since when does theists agreeing with a statement make it true or false?

Morbert wrote: »

How are they acting in contradiction to his or her stated belief?

If someone claims to be a scientist, then they are claiming to understand how the method works and what it requires. If they start adding in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of a scientific investigation, then they are ignoring the underlying basis of rational, consistent and objective inquiry that science demands. They are not being wholly scientific, only scientific when it suits them.

Morbert wrote: »

Again (and again and again) you are extending beyond science into scientism. Science says there is insufficient evidence to investigate. This means that, so long as a person acknowledges that their belief is not supported by science, they are not contradicting science. Science says it cannot be established with evidence or observation. The theist says it cannot be established with evidence or observation. Hence no contradiction. It is only when you venture in to scientism that you say, since we must base all our beliefs on what is or isn't scientifically established, we can't believe in a burning bush.

I dont know about you, but I've never understood the scientific method to end with "and if you cant find sufficient data to model, then just insert whatever belief makes you happy". Science doesn't allow for people to insert beliefs simply because they are unable to gather sufficient evidence to test and model with. Any belief you come up with is scientifically useless and will ultimately get in the way when you do find evidence to test and model with.

Morbert wrote: »

You say I misread the quote, but then describe it in exactly the same way I used it. They accept scientific results, and following the method, but they reject scientism/materialism/naturalism. Hence, science (a method of investigation and/or the results of such a method) is different to scientism (The stance that this method of investigation must always be applied). And yes, a theist that uses science to refute all NDE's but their own would be a hypocrite. But again we're nott alking about special cases. We're talking about whether or not a theist, in principle, can accept science and reject scientism. If they can, however ill-advised, then science and scientism are different. I shouldn't even have to go to such lengths, since the difference is obvious in the definition.

The only inherent limit in the scientific method is whether or not the person trying to use has enough evidence to actually make a model. There is nothing else in the method that says it cant be used to investigate any event. And if someone doesn't have enough evidence to model, then they dont get to make up an answer, as scientifically, that answer is useless. Its based on evidence, almost definitely doesn't fit in with with previous knowledge and cannot be used to accurately model future results.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are giving me your two cents on theism. The issue of contention is science and scientism.

You asked me about what I was saying about theists, so I answered. We can leave it alone, though, if you want.

Morbert wrote: »

And supposing this inconsistency exists, do you see how the thing they accept (science) is different to the thing they reject (scientism), even if the acceptance of one and the rejection of another might be inconsistent.

No. Its like saying I accept counting but I dont accept you can count to 100 because counting doesn't imply you can count to any number. Science, as a method, is only limited by what people use to do it. To fail to find sufficient data to model and test, and then use this as an excuse to bring in a magical event, is anti-scientific and hypocritical of those claiming to hold to the scientific method. They are saying "science is only good enough until I cant figure out how to use it, then anything goes".

Morbert wrote: »

As an aside, I think the use of the term "magic" is used to belittle and dismiss a group of intellectual opponents, but anyway: Surely you can see the difference between math and mathism. Mathism would only hold if we are allowed to skip numbers, as there are an uncountably infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. Or 0 and 1/2, or 0 and 10^-99. Counting makes no supposition about what is ultimately countable. So you can count away while still rejecting the idea that all numbers are necessarily countable.

You touched on it there, the bit in bold. Counting makes no suppositions about its limits, the limits are brought in by humans who might be incapable of reaching a specific number in their lifetime. But to hold to counting would require you to accept that any number is inevitably reachable, maybe not by you, maybe not with your method of counting, but someone somewhere may be able to reach it. To assume that your mathematical limits apply to other people and to the field of counting (which makes no assumptions about what is ultimately countable) is both irrational and hypocritical.
The same applies to science. To assume that your scientific-investigatory limits apply to other people and to the field of science (which makes no assumptions about what is ultimately testable) is both irrational and hypocritical.

baalthor

@Markhamill: I am trying to be as a kind as possible but for your own sake please stop; you are now making a fool of yourself.

At least first read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set

Whether something is "countable" has nothing to do with anyone's "skill".
Countability is a core concept in mathematics which is the most rigorous and logical of all disciplines.

If you had to look after sheep for a farmer for example (and this is probably how counting originated) and he asked you to count the sheep, you have to identify each sheep and assign a number. If there should be 100 sheep, you can't point at one sheep and say "1" and another and say "100" and leave it at that.
Counting means identifying each element and assigning a number (like 1,2,3 and so on).
I could claim to be able to "count" to Graham's number by using increments of (Graham's number-1) but that would be silly.


But even Graham's number is not uncountable in the mathematical sense, if I had an infinite amount of time to count 1,2,3 up to the number I would get there "eventually". On the other hand, as Morbeth stated there are an uncountable number of real numbers. Even with an infinite amount of time they can never be counted.

Going back to the discussion, you are using the word "hypocrite" incorrectly and you seem to have conceded the original point that there are different kinds of atheist. You have said very emphatically that Morbeth is not of your "persuasion" even though he is also an atheist.

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Counting makes no suppositions about its limits, the limits are brought in by humans who might be incapable of reaching a specific number in their lifetime.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But to hold to counting would require you to accept that any number is inevitably reachable, maybe not by you, maybe not with your method of counting, but someone somewhere may be able to reach it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To assume that your mathematical limits apply to other people and to the field of counting (which makes no assumptions about what is ultimately countable) is both irrational and hypocritical.

Read theorem 5 on page 15 of this book & then come back to us & explain
why the mathematical community have been making assumptions, are
irrational, &, lol, hypocritical :pac: Do you understand what was meant by
the comment that there are an uncountably infinite amount of numbers
between 0 & [latex]10^{-99}[/latex]? If so then I just don't see how you
could make your comments, I just can't envision any point you were
trying to make that had to do with the comment you were quoting.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well you have horticultural science which would say that bushed do not have throats, larynxes, lungs or diaphragms (the usual things needed to have a voice) and that even things with a voice generally cant speak if on fire,

Finally a bit of substance. Unfortunately your evidence is completely
meaningless. The claim is not that a natural entity like a bush began
speaking it is that a supernatural entity, in the form of a bush, spoke
to humanity. Has it been proven in your journal of scientistic studies
that it's not possible for a supernatural entity to manufacture a voice
by means other than through a diaphragm etc...? Nobody is claiming
that a natural entity like a bush started talking they are claiming a super,
super-natural entity was doing the talking through the bush. So as I
see it your evidence has absolutely no use. What's more is that this
supposedly happened 2000 years ago & we're trying to discern from
you how we examine this 2000 year old event. At best your evidence
will tell us that a natural entity like a bush did not start talking of
it's own accord according to natural laws. Just not the claim that is
being made...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A voice that doesn't involve vibrations in the air is simply one in your head and if you want it to be examined, you need to present some evidence that it wasn't made up or imagined (which is most likely, as we know people make stuff up and imagine things all the time), not me.

Yes but this is guesswork, this is not a scientific examination of the
situation in question - it's guesswork. You're the one claiming that
this is science & it's pitiful. At best the 'evidence' in this thread has
been vague references to horticulture, thermometers, microphones &
psychology, all completely irrelevant & useless considering the claim that
is being made - that a supernatural entity was speaking through a burning
bush over 2000 years ago & that we can examine it today to see if it
really happened or not. And honestly, I don't know how you could make
comments like these and argue their scientifically valid in the way you
are doing for the question we're dealing with...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

none of this has to be specific to the case of Moses to be used against the case of Moses. Of course, someone who understands science will understand that its up to the person claiming that a speaking burning bush existed to prove it, not me to disprove it.

You start off make a wholly anti-scientific claim by stating that we do not
specific evidence to make a scientific claim. Should I start calling you an
anti-science denier or a hypocrite because you've made what I perceive
to be an anti-scientific claim? That is the level of discourse you're just
begging for with all the magic & hypocrite comments.

Also, how can they be making a scientific claim about this issue when
not even you are able to make a convincing case that this situation is
in any way scientific? :pac:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The scientific method places no limits on what it can investigate and, in cases were there is insufficient evidence to investigate, doesn't accept or allow for baseless assumptions to be inserted.

Actually, according to merriam-webster, this is incorrect:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge
involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection
of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and
testing of hypotheses
link

It take ideology not to see that this is restricted to natural claims, not
things claimed to be supernatural that are unrepeatable in any sense of
the word, untestable, & impossible to collect data from 2000 years later.
If it was claimed to be supernatural & we had a chance to check it out
then it would be a different story but we're talking about a claim from
over 2000 years ago. Say what you like about it, just don't say it's a
scientific claim you're making.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If someone claims to be a scientist, then they are claiming to understand how the method works and what it requires. If they start adding in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of a scientific investigation, then they are ignoring the underlying basis of rational, consistent and objective inquiry that science demands. They are not being wholly scientific, only scientific when it suits them.

Yes but I don't know of anyone who satisfies the criteria you've just
illustrated. You really are arguing against a phantom if this is what is
motivating your comments & I would argue against that phantom too
if it were a real person, this just has no bearing on the majority of
religious people - none of them satisfy the criteria you've outlined.
If you bothered to look & cut out the generalizations there's no way
you'd make a comment like this. Religious people of the various cults
in question make specific claims about what does & does not transcend
natural explanation. Some don't but your comments are designed to
be as general as possible & they do not apply in the generality you'd
love them to. In fact if you think about it plenty of religious people
have changed their understanding of scripture based on science, such
as is the case with the beginning of Genesis, for example.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

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 which,

Morbert wrote: »

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?

is the topic being discussed. If what you've said thus far is what has
been motivating your argument I just don't think you have made any
kind of a case.

Turtwig

What I find delicious about all this is that both Mark and Morbert are grad students in science.

recedite

Shadow boxing; the real target left the scene a while ago.

Mark Hamill

baalthor wrote: »

@Markhamill: I am trying to be as a kind as possible but for your own sake please stop; you are now making a fool of yourself.

At least first read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set

Whether something is "countable" has nothing to do with anyone's "skill".
Countability is a core concept in mathematics which is the most rigorous and logical of all disciplines.

If you had to look after sheep for a farmer for example (and this is probably how counting originated) and he asked you to count the sheep, you have to identify each sheep and assign a number. If there should be 100 sheep, you can't point at one sheep and say "1" and another and say "100" and leave it at that.
Counting means identifying each element and assigning a number (like 1,2,3 and so on).
I could claim to be able to "count" to Graham's number by using increments of (Graham's number-1) but that would be silly.

Ok, fine. I used counting as I thought it was an example of something that didn't make assumptions about what is countable, but seeing as it does, I retract it.

baalthor wrote: »

But even Graham's number is not uncountable in the mathematical sense, if I had an infinite amount of time to count 1,2,3 up to the number I would get there "eventually". On the other hand, as Morbeth stated there are an uncountable number of real numbers. Even with an infinite amount of time they can never be counted.

Really? Even with an infinite amount of time, even if you aren't counting 1 at a time?

baalthor wrote: »

Going back to the discussion, you are using the word "hypocrite" incorrectly

I'm not.

baalthor wrote: »

you seem to have conceded the original point that there are different kinds of atheist.

Did I make a point that there weren't?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Read theorem 5 on page 15 of this book & then come back to us & explain
why the mathematical community have been making assumptions, are
irrational, &, lol, hypocritical :pac: Do you understand what was meant by
the comment that there are an uncountably infinite amount of numbers
between 0 & [latex]10^{-99}[/latex]? If so then I just don't see how you
could make your comments, I just can't envision any point you were
trying to make that had to do with the comment you were quoting.

As I said to baalthor, I was ignorant of the maths, apologies.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nobody is claiming
that a natural entity like a bush started talking they are claiming a super, super-natural entity was doing the talking through the bush.

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So as I see it your evidence has absolutely no use. What's more is that this supposedly happened 2000 years ago & we're trying to discern from you how we examine this 2000 year old event. At best your evidence will tell us that a natural entity like a bush did not start talking of it's own accord according to natural laws. Just not the claim that is being made...

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

And honestly, I don't know how you could make comments like these and argue their scientifically valid in the way you are doing for the question we're dealing with...

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You start off make a wholly anti-scientific claim by stating that we do not
specific evidence to make a scientific claim. Should I start calling you an anti-science denier or a hypocrite because you've made what I perceive to be an anti-scientific claim? That is the level of discourse you're just begging for with all the magic & hypocrite comments.

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It take ideology not to see that this is restricted to natural claims, not things claimed to be supernatural that are unrepeatable in any sense of the word, untestable, & impossible to collect data from 2000 years later. If it was claimed to be supernatural & we had a chance to check it out then it would be a different story but we're talking about a claim from over 2000 years ago. Say what you like about it, just don't say it's a scientific claim you're making.

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?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In fact if you think about it plenty of religious people have changed their understanding of scripture based on science, such as is the case with the beginning of Genesis, for example.

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).

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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 which, is the topic being discussed. If what you've said thus far is what has been motivating your argument I just don't think you have made any kind of a case.

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.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are you talking about? 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. We know that to hear a voice, you need the biological equipment to make a voice, which bushes do not have. A voice that doesn't involve vibrations in the air is simply one in your head and if you want it to be examined, you need to present some evidence that it wasn't made up or imagined (which is most likely, as we know people make stuff up and imagine things all the time), not me.

You are effectively using a "burden of proof" argument where no assertion has been made. No theist is saying the story of the burning bush "is not scientifically established, therefore it is true". As I said before, a reasonable theist is perfectly happy accepting that the story of the burning bush is not scientifically established, and that their belief has no empirical, or even rational underpinning. It is only scientism that insists they must not believe the story.

Since when does theists agreeing with a statement make it true or false?

That question makes no sense, unless you are now accusing theists of not knowing what they believe.

If someone claims to be a scientist, then they are claiming to understand how the method works and what it requires. If they start adding in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of a scientific investigation, then they are ignoring the underlying basis of rational, consistent and objective inquiry that science demands. They are not being wholly scientific, only scientific when it suits them.

Again, we are not talking about theists who "add in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of scientific investigation", even if we allow for your childish use of "magical". Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant hypotheticals like this?

I dont know about you, but I've never understood the scientific method to end with "and if you cant find sufficient data to model, then just insert whatever belief makes you happy". Science doesn't allow for people to insert beliefs simply because they are unable to gather sufficient evidence to test and model with. Any belief you come up with is scientifically useless and will ultimately get in the way when you do find evidence to test and model with.

Reasonable theists would agree.

The only inherent limit in the scientific method is whether or not the person trying to use has enough evidence to actually make a model. There is nothing else in the method that says it cant be used to investigate any event. And if someone doesn't have enough evidence to model, then they dont get to make up an answer, as scientifically, that answer is useless. Its based on evidence, almost definitely doesn't fit in with with previous knowledge and cannot be used to accurately model future results.

The limits of science are imposed by its insistence on testability. And again (and again and again and again and again) theists would agree that "scientifically, that answer is useless". They are not believing in God to subvert scientific studies, or to augment scientific theories.

No. Its like saying I accept counting but I dont accept you can count to 100 because counting doesn't imply you can count to any number. Science, as a method, is only limited by what people use to do it. To fail to find sufficient data to model and test, and then use this as an excuse to bring in a magical event, is anti-scientific and hypocritical of those claiming to hold to the scientific method. They are saying "science is only good enough until I cant figure out how to use it, then anything goes".

You touched on it there, the bit in bold. Counting makes no suppositions about its limits, the limits are brought in by humans who might be incapable of reaching a specific number in their lifetime. But to hold to counting would require you to accept that any number is inevitably reachable, maybe not by you, maybe not with your method of counting, but someone somewhere may be able to reach it. To assume that your mathematical limits apply to other people and to the field of counting (which makes no assumptions about what is ultimately countable) is both irrational and hypocritical.
The same applies to science. To assume that your scientific-investigatory limits apply to other people and to the field of science (which makes no assumptions about what is ultimately testable) is both irrational and hypocritical.

Ignoring your misunderstanding of countability, which has already been dealt with, you are arguing against a "God of the Gaps" theist. It is not simply about insufficient data, or not having the personal skill to carry out an investigation. It is about whether or not the assertion is inherently testable. You can't count uncountable things, even if the act of counting is not a statement about what is countable. "We are really brains in jars." is an assertion that cannot be tested scientifically. A story about a supernatural being capable of evading any attempt to detect him is also untestable, and you have been arguing that theists should therefore reject it out of hand. A case can be made for doing so, but this bears no relation to whether or not a theist accepts scientifically established theories, or is capable of carrying out science. This is the important difference between science (a method, an application of empiricism), and scientism or metaphysical naturalism (a claim about the universe).

Morbert

Really? Even with an infinite amount of time, even if you aren't counting 1 at a time?

Yes. It is an issue of cardinality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

Does this mean anti-mathists can't count? Since they don't believe all numbers are countable, regardless of skill or time?

pH

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. It is an issue of cardinality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

Does this mean anti-mathists can't count? Since they don't believe all numbers are countable, regardless of skill or time?

One of these days I'm going to have this out with a mathematician, that proof never made any sense to me.

Morbert

pH wrote: »

One of these days I'm going to have this out with a mathematician, that proof never made any sense to me.

While I am far from a mathematician. I can try and answer any questions.

robindch

pH wrote: »

One of these days I'm going to have this out with a mathematician, that proof never made any sense to me.

It's a wonderfully elegant and simple proof, but Cantor may not have enjoyed knowing it and various other results he uncovered -- unfortunately, he appears to have been deeply emotional about his mathematical work and its 'deeper' meaning, and consequently, spent many of his declining years in a series of sanitoria for the depressed and bewildered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Late_years

pH

Morbert wrote: »

While I am far from a mathematician. I can try and answer any questions.

Let T be a set consisting of all infinite sequences of 0s and 1s. By its definition, this set must contain not only the sequences included in S, but also s0, which is just another sequence of 0s and 1s. However, s0 does not appear anywhere in S. Hence, T cannot coincide with S.

Because this argument applies to any countable set S of sequences of 0s and 1s, it follows that T cannot be equal to any such set. Thus T is uncountable: it cannot be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers N.

(from the wiki)

I guess my fundamental problem is with the bit in bold, surely you can apply the same diagonal argument on it, to find a sequence of 0s and 1s that is not in T, contradicting the "Let T be a set of all infinite sequences", making it a proof that such a set T does not in fact exist rather than being uncountable.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I accept that I must be seeing it incorrectly, it's just I've never been able to figure it out.

Anyway, probably waaaaaay off topic for this thread!

sponsoredwalk

pH wrote: »

One of these days I'm going to have this out with a mathematician, that proof never made any sense to me.

Took me ages to get the proof & most certainly pictures & proofs like the
one in the wikipedia link didn't help! This video is an alright way to begin
to understand some of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrHlySlHTY

Well it helped me anyway. I just found this video while looking for that
one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7AyOLh1eOM

This is a great way to understand some of the terminology needed to
understand the proof of uncountability. It gives a proof of uncountability
as well but if you don't get it don't sweat. Then try & read the proof in
the book I linked to above, try reading a few of the previous pages on
countability as well. If you still don't get it then don't worry about it,
honestly took me a long time but I finally cracked it :cool:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Even with an infinite amount of time, even if you aren't counting 1 at a time?

Yeah, it's a total mindfcuk

I'll try make a serious post sometime soon, just can't do a big monstrous
post at the moment

Morbert

pH wrote: »

(from the wiki)

I guess my fundamental problem is with the bit in bold, surely you can apply the same diagonal argument on it, to find a sequence of 0s and 1s that is not in T, contradicting the "Let T be a set of all infinite sequences", making it a proof that such a set T does not in fact exist rather than being uncountable.

In a sense, the bit in bold is what the proof shows if you replace "T" with "S". There does not exist a countable list S of all elements in T. If you do not compile a list (i.e. If you do not assume the elements all have a label s1,s2,s3 etc) then there is no contradiction in supposing the set exists. In other words, if you relax the countability condition, you can properly define the set.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

You are effectively using a "burden of proof" argument where no assertion has been made. No theist is saying the story of the burning bush "is not scientifically established, therefore it is true". As I said before, a reasonable theist is perfectly happy accepting that the story of the burning bush is not scientifically established, and that their belief has no empirical, or even rational underpinning. It is only scientism that insists they must not believe the story.

But they are saying "it's not scientifically established, therefore it is true", or, at least, "is not scientifically established, therefore I can act as if its true without any of the testing or intellectual rigor I would extend to anything else in my working life".

Morbert wrote: »

That question makes no sense, unless you are now accusing theists of not knowing what they believe.

I was trying to point out that the veracity of a statement hold regardless of whether a theist can recognise it. Calling it a magical burning bush is true (or false) independent of whether theists can recognise it.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, we are not talking about theists who "add in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of scientific investigation", even if we allow for your childish use of "magical". Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant hypotheticals like this?

Thats exactly what we a re talking about. This person, for whatever reason, is unable to directly examine a claim so this gives them an opportunity to believe something without evidence.

Morbert wrote: »

The limits of science are imposed by its insistence on testability.

Dont you mean the limits are imposed by the scientists ability to test?

Morbert wrote: »

And again (and again and again and again and again) theists would agree that "scientifically, that answer is useless". They are not believing in God to subvert scientific studies, or to augment scientific theories.

So they believe in something scientifically useless, scientifically rejected (as it isn't based on any evidence) but aren't being hypocritical for believing it? If someone spent all their working day preaching to people about the dangers of smoking and how it hurts the users and all around them, and then went home and smoked, wouldn't they be hypocrites?

Morbert wrote: »

Ignoring your misunderstanding of countability, which has already been dealt with, you are arguing against a "God of the Gaps" theist. It is not simply about insufficient data, or not having the personal skill to carry out an investigation. It is about whether or not the assertion is inherently testable.

Are you saying if someone came along to day and said that a burning bush just spoke to them five minutes ago that that would be inherently untestable?

Morbert wrote: »

You can't count uncountable things, even if the act of counting is not a statement about what is countable. "We are really brains in jars." is an assertion that cannot be tested scientifically. A story about a supernatural being capable of evading any attempt to detect him is also untestable, and you have been arguing that theists should therefore reject it out of hand. A case can be made for doing so, but this bears no relation to whether or not a theist accepts scientifically established theories, or is capable of carrying out science. This is the important difference between science (a method, an application of empiricism), and scientism or metaphysical naturalism (a claim about the universe).

Doesn't the method reject inherently untestable claims out of hand?

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But they are saying "it's not scientifically established, therefore it is true", or, at least, "is not scientifically established, therefore I can act as if its true without any of the testing or intellectual rigor I would extend to anything else in my working life".

Those are two very different statements. And while I wouldn't necessarily agree with either, even if they are saying the latter, they are still accepting science, but rejecting scientism.

I was trying to point out that the veracity of a statement hold regardless of whether a theist can recognise it. Calling it a magical burning bush is true (or false) independent of whether theists can recognise it.

Then you cannot even engage in a debate with them. Your insistence on dismissive, misleading words stifles any kind of discussion. It is no better than the label "New Atheism".

Thats exactly what we a re talking about. This person, for whatever reason, is unable to directly examine a claim so this gives them an opportunity to believe something without evidence.

That is different to "adding in magical explanations for every situation where they themselves are unable to satisfy the requirements of scientific investigation". It is unrelated to "they themselves". They simply believe things that are not established by science.

Dont you mean the limits are imposed by the scientists ability to test?

No.

So they believe in something scientifically useless, scientifically rejected (as it isn't based on any evidence) but aren't being hypocritical for believing it?

Exactly.

If someone spent all their working day preaching to people about the dangers of smoking and how it hurts the users and all around them, and then went home and smoked, wouldn't they be hypocrites?

They would be hypocrites if they claimed that people shouldn't smoke, or that it is a virtue not to smoke, but did not feel any obligation or moral compulsion to abstain from smoking.

Are you saying if someone came along to day and said that a burning bush just spoke to them five minutes ago that that would be inherently untestable?

Yes. And because of that, I personally would not believe them as not only is it untestable, it is an extraordinary claim.

Doesn't the method reject inherently untestable claims out of hand?

What does it mean for a method to reject inherently untestable claims out of hand? Are you asking if reviewers would reject a paper which supposed an inherently untestable, supernatural explanation? Yes, as it is unscientific.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

Those are two very different statements. And while I wouldn't necessarily agree with either, even if they are saying the latter, they are still accepting science, but rejecting scientism.

I'm pretty sure that science doesn't allow you to insert evidence-less beliefs in a non scientifically established situation. I mean that scientifically, if you cant establish something, then you wait until you can (until you get more evidence or can devise a test) before coming to a conclusion.

Morbert wrote: »

Then you cannot even engage in a debate with them. Your insistence on dismissive, misleading words stifles any kind of discussion. It is no better than the label "New Atheism".

Its not dismissive, and its not misleading, its the truth (an unpleasant truth for some). Scientifically, "magical" is indistinguishable from "divine".

Morbert wrote: »

They simply believe things that are not established by science.

Not quite, they believe in things that they believe are not established by science. Many people believe there is more to our consciousness than our biological brains, despite all the scientific evidence pointing to the brain being the entire source and extent of our minds.

Morbert wrote: »

No.

So you are saying that science, a method of testing, is limited by its insistence on testing?

Morbert wrote: »

They would be hypocrites if they claimed that people shouldn't smoke, or that it is a virtue not to smoke, but did not feel any obligation or moral compulsion to abstain from smoking.

So wouldn't someone be a hypocrite if they lived their working life according to scientific principles, even taught them to others, but then ignored them when it came to their own religious beliefs?

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. And because of that, I personally would not believe them as not only is it untestable, it is an extraordinary claim.

But how is it inherently untestable? Why cant you go to see the bush? why cant you examine the area for other possible causes, interview the witness to see if they are being honest and sane?

Morbert wrote: »

What does it mean for a method to reject inherently untestable claims out of hand? Are you asking if reviewers would reject a paper which supposed an inherently untestable, supernatural explanation? Yes, as it is unscientific.

No, I was asking doesn't the scientific method inherently reject untestable claims. It seems like the answer is yes it does. So now we have a method that rejects untestable claims and a philosophy that inherently rejects untestable claims. Whats the difference?

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that science doesn't allow you to insert evidence-less beliefs in a non scientifically established situation. I mean that scientifically, if you cant establish something, then you wait until you can (until you get more evidence or can devise a test) before coming to a conclusion.

What does it mean to say "Science doesn't allow"? Science is science. If you tried to pass evidence-less beliefs as science, then you would be in trouble. But science, a method of testing and application of empiricism, or the results of such a method, doesn't care about personal beliefs.

And again (and again and again and again and again and again and again), we are talking about inherently untestable claims. Science will never be able to test the story of a burning bush because it is a hypothesis that does not fall under the methodological assumption of uniformitarianism.

Its not dismissive, and its not misleading, its the truth (an unpleasant truth for some). Scientifically, "magical" is indistinguishable from "divine".

It is both dismissive and misleading, and it is not the truth. It is a definition you are contriving with the intention of being dismissive.

Not quite, they believe in things that they believe are not established by science. Many people believe there is more to our consciousness than our biological brains, despite all the scientific evidence pointing to the brain being the entire source and extent of our minds.

They might believe there is some undetectable quality or essence (a spirit) that is channelled through the brain. This has no scientific backing, but so long as they accept this, there's no issue. There is nothing in the scientific reports or findings that they are rejecting.

So you are saying that science, a method of testing, is limited by its insistence on testing?

Yes.

So wouldn't someone be a hypocrite if they lived their working life according to scientific principles, even taught them to others, but then ignored them when it came to their own religious beliefs?

No, provided they accept their personal beliefs are not scientifically established. They would be hypocrites if they told people they should reject unscientific beliefs, but secretly held unscientific beliefs of their own.

Again (and again and again and again), science says nothing about what you should believe. It is a method, or the results of a method. This really is an incredibly simple point.

But how is it inherently untestable? Why cant you go to see the bush? why cant you examine the area for other possible causes, interview the witness to see if they are being honest and sane?

What would that tell you? God might have extinguished the bush and restored it anew. God might have appeared to millions of witnesses, or one schizophrenic. *shrug*

No, I was asking doesn't the scientific method inherently reject untestable claims. It seems like the answer is yes it does. So now we have a method that rejects untestable claims and a philosophy that inherently rejects untestable claims. Whats the difference?

Your phrasing is atrocious. So again (and again and again and again) science is a method or results from the method. Scientists can investigate a hypothesis, and that hypothesis can be affirmed or falsified. If a scientist cannot investigate a hypothesis, it cannot be affirmed or falsified. Science is not a philosophy that informs us as to which personal beliefs we should reject or accept. We say a theist fully accepts science if they do not reject any theory or set of data that has been established by the scientific method. A theist rejects scientism if they do not subscribe to the idea that we should reject all beliefs that are not scientifically established.

Do you honestly believe that, when a person looks up "science" in wikipedia that, instead of being directed to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

they should be directed to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Do you honestly not see the distinction between the two? Between carpentry, and the belief that carpentry is the only means of producing houses and furniture? Between the act of counting, and the mistaken belief that all numbers are countable? I still cannot get over the fact that, several post later, I have to continually hammer home this point.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

What does it mean to say "Science doesn't allow"? Science is science. If you tried to pass evidence-less beliefs as science, then you would be in trouble. But science, a method of testing and application of empiricism, or the results of such a method, doesn't care about personal beliefs.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

And again (and again and again and again and again and again and again), we are talking about inherently untestable claims. Science will never be able to test the story of a burning bush because it is a hypothesis that does not fall under the methodological assumption of uniformitarianism.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

It is both dismissive and misleading, and it is not the truth. It is a definition you are contriving with the intention of being dismissive.

No, because as I've said, scientifically, "magical" is indistinguishable from "divine".

Morbert wrote: »

They might believe there is some undetectable quality or essence (a spirit) that is channelled through the brain. This has no scientific backing, but so long as they accept this, there's no issue. There is nothing in the scientific reports or findings that they are rejecting.

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?

Morbert wrote: »

No, provided they accept their personal beliefs are not scientifically established. They would be hypocrites if they told people they should reject unscientific beliefs, but secretly held unscientific beliefs of their own.

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?

Morbert wrote: »

What would that tell you? God might have extinguished the bush and restored it anew. God might have appeared to millions of witnesses, or one schizophrenic. *shrug*

It would tell you what physical evidence there is for their claims.

Morbert wrote: »

Your phrasing is atrocious. So again (and again and again and again) science is a method or results from the method.

Science is the method, not the results.

Morbert wrote: »

Scientists can investigate a hypothesis, and that hypothesis can be affirmed or falsified. If a scientist cannot investigate a hypothesis, it cannot be affirmed or falsified. Science is not a philosophy that informs us as to which personal beliefs we should reject or accept.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

We say a theist fully accepts science if they do not reject any theory or set of data that has been established by the scientific method. A theist rejects scientism if they do not subscribe to the idea that we should reject all beliefs that are not scientifically established.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that, when a person looks up "science" in wikipedia that, instead of being directed to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

they should be directed to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Other way around makes more sense.