Debating

[PersonalPronoun]

If you have no evidence, why should I consider any claim you make?"  This is the common refrain.  You ask me to accept your view of reality without evidence and I refuse until you provide something that I can evaluate.  I will not blindly accept your claim.

 

This entire paragraph (including what i deleted) is a great example of why I am becoming frustrated. 

You guys keep accusing me of not listening, then posting "answers" that show that you are not listening either. 

 

1) I have not asked you to accept (blindly or otherwise) any of the specific claims I have made. 

In fact, I have specifically said that these claims are not what the debate, is,  was, or will be about to me. I keep saying it, and you guys keep ignoring it. 

Is part of what I'm writing just not showing up? 

 

2) I'm not sure exactly what you are thinking when you ask how you are to "evaluate" something I claim. 

I don't understand what is so hard about this. 

I'm not asking you to devote your life to doing some scientific study about the existence of the soul, or anything else I've presented. 

I was asking only for conversation. 

something simple. 

Something, I assume, you came to the forums for from the beginning. 

 

Yes, the whole point of science is to imagine what could be, and then to test that imagination.

Ok, but the one thing we all agree upon here is that this is not a science fact discussion. 

I didn't come here to DO science. 

Is it possible to do just the imagining part for a while? 

Are we going to disrupt the elemental forces of the universe if we do not, right here and now, test the things we imagine? 

If you take the frame off the Mona Lisa, is her smile less mysterious? 

 

This fundamental step is missing in your worldview, and if I understand you correctly, you claim that there are instances where your hypotheses cannot be tested.

 

 

Yet......there are certainly some of my hypotheses that can not be tested yet. 

The existence of the atom could also not be tested at the time it was first postulated. 

(This is where you guys patiently explain to the ignorant man, that there was certainly evidence for the atom, and he simply doesn't understand.)

 

This is another source of my frustration. 

I feel fairly certain that you guys know science fairly well. Much better in fact than I (which I have freely admitted.)

I feel it is unnecessary for me to provide specific examples of how many times in history (and in our current time) that science has made hypotheses that were untestable at the time they were made. 

I'm not asking anything different than that. 

 

I addressed this specifically when I then concluded that your claims are worthless because I am incapable of judging the veracity of your claims.  I'm not trying to debunk anything, as you haven't even given me anything I can debunk.  I'm trying to explain why I don't think your claims can even be considered to be an accurate reflection of reality.  I have absolutely no way to measure the veracity of your claims.

Don't measure anything. 

I didn't ask you to measure anything. 

I didn't come here expecting you or any one else to consider my views of reality to be accurate. 

I just wanted to talk. 

You know, a pleasant way to pass time with people. 

It was never anything more than that for me. 

 

 

There are no priests of science for any definition of priest that I am aware of. 

I meant priest in the sense that you guys insist on telling me that I need an intermediary between me and reality. 

You can not deny that you have claimed this, that all of you have claimed this, in nearly every post you have written. 

 

Here's this:

I once again admit that there are holes in my world view. 

I once again admit that I can not define reality with the preciseness that science can. 

Yet, the whole of the picture I get from my understandings, while

not as detailed, and not as precise, ultimately result in many of the same findings we get from science. 

 

You guys, on the other hand, refuse to admit that there are also holes in science. 

You refuse to admit that there are subjects that are important to humanity, that can't be studied by science. 

 

I did not go looking for this article, it was just there in my news magazine today, I'd really appreciate it if you would take five minutes to read it and comment on it.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8034143/john-ioannidis-interview

[JMJones0424]

I have never once accused you of not listening.  This is a false claim.

[JMJones0424]

I am utterly bewildered by your reply.

 

Let's start again.  You claim that your soul exists.  Why should I accept your claim as valid?

[PersonalPronoun]

I see, that we use our technology to cut down miles and miles of rainforest in a single day, and I know that this is not a responsible action. 

 

I see, that china is causing the air that people breathe to become visible and makes people cough. 

I know that this is not good for the world.

 

I see people, en mass, buying new shoes when they get a few scratches in the old ones, and I know that this is not responsible activity. 

It makes us require more factories to use more energy, and cause more pollution. 

 

I see how a single physical failure of nuclear technology wipes out a thousand miles of land for 20,000 years, and I know this is not good for our planet. 

 

I see, that our population has grown by around 30% in around 30 to 35 years. 

I know that unless something happens to dramatically reduce the population soon, the problems we face are going to get even worse than they are now. 

 

Then science tells me that these things,  along with other things we are not being responsible about, are causing global warming. 

 

Conclusion: We humans are being irresponsible to our environment, and it is causing global problems. 

I reached this conclusion independently of science. 

My picture was not as detailed as that provided by science. 

But, I was neither wrong in my conclusion, nor in any of those things (and more) that tell me how we are being irresponsible with our environment. 

[PersonalPronoun]

I am utterly bewildered by your reply.

 

Let's start again.  You claim that your soul exists.  Why should I accept your claim as valid?

I am just as confused by yours. Did I not clearly state this?

 

I am not asking you to accept my claim that the soul exists as anything more than a claim that my soul exists.

I am not here for validation.

I m here for conversation.

[PersonalPronoun]

I have never once accused you of not listening.  This is a false claim.

I apologize, I was writing specifically to you, but with the understanding that It was also being read by Eclogite who did (various times) accuse me of not listening.

[JMJones0424]

No worries.  Forum threads are not conducive to multiple lines of communication.

 

As such, I bring you back to my entry to this discussion.  I identified a statement you had made that seemed to me to be at the center of our differing views of our realities.  "What, other than science, do you propose as being an authority in understanding reality?  How have you determined that this other approach is useful to understand reality?"

 

"I am not asking you to accept my claim that the soul exists as anything more than a claim that my soul exists." Then as far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over regarding your soul.  You've provided nothing other than your assertion that your soul exists.  I would be a fool to accept your assertion to be accurate.

 

As for your other questions, science can be used to do harm as much as it can be used to do good.  Science is amoral.  What humans choose to do with testable knowledge is their own business.  Science can be used to show that clear cutting of rainforests is detrimental.  Science can also be used to show that clear cutting of rainforests provides fertile land in which to grow crops.  There is no value judgement involved.  Show me a claim that is capable of being shown to be false, and I will say that the claim is scientific.

[Eclogite]

It makes no difference if you call it anger or frustration. The only point he makes in the entirety of the post is to tell me how worthless my opinion is to him. 

It makes a difference. Anger typically arises without rational justification and is directed outwards. Frustration is generally a recognition of ones own failure up to that point and so is directed inwards. I am frustrated that I am unable to convince you of the errors present in your thinking. I am not angry at you for failing to recognise those errors. I trust you see that the two are radically different. Do you see that?

 

JMJones is making the point of how worthless your opinion is, period. It is worthless to you because it is a flawed opinion. It makes very little difference to him, or me, or pgrmdave that you hold a flawed viewpoint: it does make a difference to you.

You each make conclusions without any scientific evidence or study, while in the middle of telling me how wrong I am in doing the same.

And when I challenge you on it, you completely ignore the challenge or answer it with the same appeal to "common sense" that I so often make. 

1. I don't believe I have done this, though I may have offered a conclusion based on scientific evidence I have failed to present, believing knowledge of that evidence to widely known.

2. Identify any such instance and I shall supply the evidence.

3. Any exception will be where I have offered a logical argument based on (apparently) mutually agreed premises.

4. I do not believe in "common sense", so I doubt I have ever implictly or explicitly appealled to it. Please identify any such instances.

 

"should I assume a pink elephant whispered it in my ear?" 

That's the answer I got when I challenged jmjones of Making conclusions with out any evidence, which he clearly does while berating me for the same thing. 

JMJones has explained that his question was a device to demonstrate to you that your belief in the soul was without evidence. It was a logical question and required no evidence. Or, more exactly, the question itself and its only valid answer were the evidence.

 

I'm not listening? 

Bullshit! 

I have admitted my lack of scientific understanding to you countless times, not only in this debate, but in every thread In which I have spoken to you Eclogite. 

All in spite of the fact that I have purposely stayed away from the sub forums that are directly about science. 

I purposely posted my idea about racial memory in the philosophy weight room sub forum specifically because I realize it is not science. You came in and accused me of being unscientific. Yes, it's unscientific. It was just an idea. 

1. If you think that philosophy somehow has less rigourous demands for logic, or evidence than does science then you are seriously mistaken.

2. You have indeed declared a lack of knowledge of science. But you seem proud of this lack: certainly you resist any attempt any of us have made to educate you in the principles of science.

3. Your racial memory concept was, as you say, just an idea. It was an interesting idea: it just happens to be one that has no significant evidence for it and a wealth of evidence against it. From my recollection of our discussion on it I don't recall any point where you clearly agreed with this. The impression you left me was that you think "well, I can see there's nothing to support this idea, but I still think it might be true". Is that the case?

 

(This is an aside. I suspect that you may think my rejection of the racial memory notion is evidence that I have a closed mind on this issue. I have been working on a multi-volume SF novel for three or four decades. It is important to one of the story lines that such a racial memory, embedded in DNA, or some other heritable component, be a reality. I have scoured textbooks and research papers throughout those years looking for any glimmering of a possibility I could twist into a plot concept. I have found nothing. My rejection of the idea is rooted firmly in a reality where there is no evidence for the idea and a world of evidence against it. That is not a close minded viewpoint. [The search continues.....for a work of fiction.])

 

Debunking my ideas?

You have not even relaxed your religious-like adherence to science enough to realize that I have DIRECTLY, not kind of, not just a little bit, but CLEARLY and CONCISELY, admitted that I have no scientific grounds to stand on in the individual examples I have spoken of. There is nothing to debunk. 

 

This entire debate since I have joined it, has come from a single statement I made about science not being the final authority in understanding the whole of reality. 

Even in that first statement I did not, in any way, cast any aspersions against science itself. 

However, in every post you act as if I'm trying to destroy your whole way of life. 

You have not once admitted that you could possibly be wrong about any thing. 

We understand that you are largely ignorant of science.

We understand that you think that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge.

I possibly rate some alternative ways of gathering knowledge marginally higher than JMJones and pgrmdave.

We have been trying to, firstly, determine what you think those other ways are, and secondly, point out the serious weaknesses in the methods you have so far suggested.

 

I am wrong about some things, more pointedly I am vastly ignorant about most things. However, the things we have been discussing, the ideas and positions of yours I have been rejecting, are things that I think it unlikely I am wrong about. Why? Because the evidence is in favour of my position and against yours.

 

I am ready to completely abandon any of my ideas and understanding if they are overturned by evidence. I used to think that all planetary systems would be broadly similar to the solar system. We now know that is false. I used to think that the Bay of Islands was a conformable igneous intrusion in the form of a lopolith. We now know it is a tectonically emplaced slice of ocean crust and upper mantle. I used to think support for Darwin's theory had been largely continuous since shortly after its publication. I now understand that natural selection almost died following the rediscovery of Mendel's work by de Vries and others and the consequent focus on mutations.

 

I could fill pages with examples of where I have been wrong. In every instance my early position was based upon the existing evidence, or the evidence that I was aware of. My change of mind was based on new evidence, or evidence that was new to me. We are simply suggesting that this is a good method to follow to enhance the quality of ones knowlege. You appear to reject it and offer nothing effective in its place.

 

Who asked you to "save" me from anything? I didn't. 

I just wanted to have a conversation. The fact that you think I need saving at all, shows how disproportionally threatened you feel. 

Au contraire. I was about nine years old when I realised that teaching would be an interesting thing. The desire to help people - myself firmly included - towards a better understanding of "reality" has underpinned and informed most, perhaps all, of the major decisions in my life. I have contemplated what the origin of such a desire might be and found no convincing answer. I just accept it as a key aspect of my character.

 

Just like the birdwatcher who feels compelled to explain the key difference in the hovering mode of a sparrowhawk and red kite to someone who can't distinguish a sparrow from blue tit, I feel compelled to share my love for and confidence in the scientific method with others.

 

Your attitude to science is no threat to me because it is a silly attitude, unsupported by either science or logic. It is, I believe (and will provide logic or evidence to support that view if you actually require it), a threat to you. Excuse me for deciding you need saving and for attempting to do so.

 

And nothing stops all of this from also being a conversation.

 

1) religion claims only they know the truth.

1) you guys have repeatedly said that only science knows reality.

I have certainly not said that. I don't think the others have either. We have said that science offers the best way of learning about reality and that is has a proven track record to support this belief. Please give an example of any other method that can match its record. If you cannot then you must acknowledge the point we are making -science offers the best way of learning about reality.

 

 

2) religion wants nothing more than to save us from our sins. 

2) you guys are only trying to save me from the "quagmire of my delusions"

Do you think it would be more moral, or responsible or honest of us to let you sink?

 

 

3) religion requires a middle man between us and God. 

Only special people can tell you what God wants of us.

3) science requires a middle man between me and reality. 

Only special people can tell me what reality really is.

In today's world none of us can survive without middlemen. Apart from a few vegetables I don't grow my own food. Apart from some fallen tree limbs I don't provide my own heating. I don't build my own transport. I don't construct my own computer. Etc. Human civilisation is based upon middle men.

 

I require special people to pilot the plane I am in across the Atlantic. But I know they are not that special. I know I could acquire some of the same skills. This does not mean I do not value those skills, but I understand the rudimentaries of aerodynamics and lift and aerilons and flaps and stalls and jet engines and turbo-props.

 

In today's civilisation specilisation is the key and everybody, to a greater or lesser extent is a specialist. Have I already used the quote: You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts. Science has demonstrated that those specialists engaged in its practice are remarkably successful at describing and explaining reality. You are free to disregard the facts elucidated by science; you are not free to claim your opinions are as worthy as those facts - without offering evidence or logic to support your position.

 

 

4) if I don't listen to religion I am doomed to some horrible life, not only here on earth, but also after I die. 

4) if I don't listen to science I am always at risk of some dire consequence here on earth. At least you leave the afterlife alone. 

(kind of)

Strawman fallacy. If you don't listen to science you are going to be more ignorant than you need to be. You are free to make that choice, just don't pretend that it makes you less ignorant.

 

5) Religion has killed and tortured people in an attempt to rid the world of any one who disagrees with them.

5) science has not started killing and torturing yet, but it's already decided that religion is worthless and should be eliminated, and that philosophy is dead. 

Bollocks. Science follows the practice of methodological naturalism. It does not deny the existence of gods or the supernatural, it declares that as such entities, if they exist, are not subject to proper scientific study they will be ignored.

 

A significant minority of scientists are theists. If individual scientists choose to decry religion that is independent of their science, no matter how much they may protest.

 

Philosophy is dead? There are many ignorant scientists who believe this - and the lunancy of some philosophers helps justify their belief - but philosophy remains an important medium for understanding the world and (remarkably) about the only valid alternative to investigating reality other than science. I say remarkably because although we have asked you for alternatives to science for discovering reality you do not seem to have offered it as such an alternative.

 

If we humans are created by the natural forces of the universe, out of the building blocks of matter, the same matter that the universe itself is made of, what makes us separate from the universe? 

 

This is the question that I asked. I asked it because you guys have repeatedly claimed that we can't understand reality without science, that reality affects us and never the other way round.

 Prgmdave says it directly in one of his posts when he accuses me (albeit indirectly) of "magical" thinking.

It is a little telling, that you automatically conclude that my question assumes that we are not a part of the universe when

the entire prelude to the actual question suggests that I think the exact opposite. Not to mention that it is the main implication of the argument I've been making in this entire debate. 

 

You guys speak as though we are so far removed from reality that we are incapable of understanding it with out the special priests of science to tell us the truth. 

 

These guys say it much more clearly than I can.....

 

"The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."

— John Wheeler

 

"The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe."

 

-Michio Kaku

 

"The universe is not indifferent to our existence - it depends on it."

-Stephen Hawking

 

Now, if you wish it so, I'll gladly leave you guys to your own private comfort zone.

1. Your question came out of left field and its intent was wholly obscure.

 

2. The first two quotations perfectly support the position we have been taking and seem quite at odds with all you have been saying. Kaku is not saying that because our brain is really complex that we can just think things up and they will be right. He is likely saying that using this complex device, combined with the power of the scientific method we can learn great things.

 

Wheeler is suggesting that we approach a point where physics may be able to answer the "why" questions as well as the "how" questions. That's a debatable point, upon which I have no settled opinion.

 

The third quote sounds like Hawking is arguing for the Strong Antrhopic Principle. I had not thought that matches Hawkings thinking, so I would need to see context before commenting further.

 

Executive Summary

Philosphy provided some of the key tools of science and continues to offer valuable insights into nature. Science has been more successful, through the gathering of evidence and application of logic, than any other method of discerning reality. You have failed to offer, thus far, any plausible alternative method. Your failure to do so is zero threat to science, or to our confidence in it. Our continued dialogue is prompted by a desire to correct your flawed thinking and get you to realise that evidence and logic are open to use by non-specialists too.

[PersonalPronoun]

It makes a difference. Anger typically arises without rational justification and is directed outwards. Frustration is generally a recognition of ones own failure up to that point and so is directed inwards. I am frustrated that I am unable to convince you of the errors present in your thinking. I am not angry at you for failing to recognise those errors. I trust you see that the two are radically different. Do you see that?

I don't understand why you continuously think that I am unaware of the errors in my thinking. 

I've admitted it freely nearly every time you have mentioned it.

In fact, I've claimed that it's impossible for human beings not to have errors in their thinking or implied it at the very least.

 

I do see the two definitions you have provided. I see the difference between the two. I understand the concept that you are representing. 

And yet.....I failed to see that defined difference in many of the posts we've written here. 

 

 

JMJones is making the point of how worthless your opinion is, period.

Yes that was quite clear.

 

 It is worthless to you because it is a flawed opinion. 

Even if flawed, it is not worthless to me, but you are welcome to yours.

 

 

1. I don't believe I have done this, though I may have offered a conclusion based on scientific evidence I have failed to present, believing knowledge of that evidence to widely known.

2. Identify any such instance and I shall supply the evidence.

3. Any exception will be where I have offered a logical argument based on (apparently) mutually agreed premises.

4. I do not believe in "common sense", so I doubt I have ever implictly or explicitly appealled to it. Please identify any such instances.

Ok. I apologize if I have wrongly accused you. 

All three of you have answered which ever posts you wanted, which I invite, but I do forget who I'm talking to on occasion. 

 

 

JMJones has explained that his question was a device to demonstrate to you that your belief in the soul was without evidence. It was a logical question and required no evidence. Or, more exactly, the question itself and its only valid answer were the evidence.

I would listen to a better explanation of this. 

He answered with that device as an implication that the visions he spoke of were obviously the result of a lack of oxygen in the brain. 

If that were obviously true then why? 

The answer was the pink dragon thing. 

 

The fact is, I don't care what you believe about the soul, or what he believes about the soul. 

But in accusing me of baseless claims, it seems wrong somehow to be making them himself. 

You guys refuse to see that? Ok. I'll let it go.

 

 

1. If you think that philosophy somehow has less rigourous demands for logic, or evidence than does science then you are seriously mistaken.

I did not claim, or implicate this.

 

2. You have indeed declared a lack of knowledge of science. But you seem proud of this lack: certainly you resist any attempt any of us have made to educate you in the principles of science.

It's not pride. My position from the beginning is that I do not consider science to be the final authority. 

This means that I am ok with not having the understanding of science that you have. 

Furthermore, I've only felt it necessary to keep repeating it because you keep throwing it at me.

I'm capable of asking for the education I wish for myself. 

You on the other hand seem incapable of putting the teacher aside.

Perhaps you have no social understanding of how unhelpful it is to a student to be told he is wrong in everything he says.

 

 

3. Your racial memory concept was, as you say, just an idea. It was an interesting idea: it just happens to be one that has no significant evidence for it and a wealth of evidence against it. From my recollection of our discussion on it I don't recall any point where you clearly agreed with this. The impression you left me was that you think "well, I can see there's nothing to support this idea, but I still think it might be true". Is that the case?

Your final impression is almost correct. I can see that I can't show you the support that I feel exists, in any kind of way that would be acceptable to you, but I still believe it might be true. 

In spite of what ever evidence you do not have, it would be nice if, just once, you could admit that a thing you have no evidence for is still possible. Especially when we so often make things possible that were not possible before. 

However, and again, I didn't ask for your validation. We can leave it at that. 

 

(This is an aside. I suspect that you may think my rejection of the racial memory notion is evidence that I have a closed mind on this issue.

Not on this issue. I noticed your interest.

 

 

I have been working on a multi-volume SF novel for three or four decades. It is important to one of the story lines that such a racial memory, embedded in DNA, or some other heritable component, be a reality. I have scoured textbooks and research papers throughout those years looking for any glimmering of a possibility I could twist into a plot concept. I have found nothing. 

I'm sure it will not surprise you that I am baffled by this. 

It's called fiction because it is not reality. 

There are a million ways you could make the concept believable. 

Your readers would be no more aware of future technology than we are. 

I was completely confused at all the uproar about Dan Browns books. It's fiction. It's a lie. Purposeful and unapologetic lies.

People will suspend their disbelief if your books are good reading. (unless they are you guys, I suppose.) 

 

 

My rejection of the idea is rooted firmly in a reality where there is no evidence for the idea and a world of evidence against it. That is not a close minded viewpoint. [The search continues.....for a work of fiction.])

I don't mind your rejection of my idea, or any of my ideas. 

I mind the assumption, or implied assumption, that I should give up my ideas and submit to your education just because you reject them.

You do not know what might be revealed in the future. 

As you suggested with Kuhn, the paradigm will change. 

I know (in spite of what you think of me saying it,) that in the future there's likely be another Einstein, who is going to turn the science world on its ear, and reveal that things that you currently think ridiculous, are indeed possible. 

The evidence I have is all of human history.

 

  

We understand that you are largely ignorant of science.

We understand that you think that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge.

I possibly rate some alternative ways of gathering knowledge marginally higher than JMJones and pgrmdave.

We have been trying to, firstly, determine what you think those other ways are, and secondly, point out the serious weaknesses in the methods you have so far suggested.

 

I am wrong about some things, more pointedly I am vastly ignorant about most things. However, the things we have been discussing, the ideas and positions of yours I have been rejecting, are things that I think it unlikely I am wrong about. Why? Because the evidence is in favour of my position and against yours.

 

I am ready to completely abandon any of my ideas and understanding if they are overturned by evidence. I used to think that all planetary systems would be broadly similar to the solar system. We now know that is false. I used to think that the Bay of Islands was a conformable igneous intrusion in the form of a lopolith. We now know it is a tectonically emplaced slice of ocean crust and upper mantle. I used to think support for Darwin's theory had been largely continuous since shortly after its publication. I now understand that natural selection almost died following the rediscovery of Mendel's work by de Vries and others and the consequent focus on mutations.

 

I could fill pages with examples of where I have been wrong. In every instance my early position was based upon the existing evidence, or the evidence that I was aware of. My change of mind was based on new evidence, or evidence that was new to me. We are simply suggesting that this is a good method to follow to enhance the quality of ones knowlege. You appear to reject it and offer nothing effective in its place.

 

It's difficult for me to understand this. 

I did not, do not, and will not reject science. 

I did not, do not, and will not suggest anything in its place. 

I suggest that it shouldn't be taken all by itself. 

 

I have very clearly stated that all of our experiences in reality together are what I am advocating.

This is exactly one of the causes of my own frustration. You guys keep saying I'm not listening while you are clearly not listening either. 

You guys accuse me over and over again of failing to posit an alternative when the entire point is not an alternative but an addition. 

 

 

Your attitude to science is no threat to me because it is a silly attitude, unsupported by either science or logic. It is, I believe (and will provide logic or evidence to support that view if you actually require it), a threat to you. 

Yes, I'd like to understand why you believe it is a threat to me.

 

Excuse me for deciding you need saving and for attempting to do so.

No. Allow me to decide what I need saving from, and to ask for the help I desire.

 

I have certainly not said that. I don't think the others have either. We have said that science offers the best way of learning about reality and that is has a proven track record to support this belief. Please give an example of any other method that can match its record. If you cannot then you must acknowledge the point we are making -science offers the best way of learning about reality.

You've implied it. You still are implying it.

No, I can't give that example. You have not defined it directly, but with your implications, in such a way that the only acceptable record to be matched is in the predictions science can make about reality.

So, if no other method can predict reality, then it can not possibly be worth science.

We lived reality for a long long time without the predictive power of science. 

Our ancestors made us possible by paying attention in the moment, seeing that this didn't work, and that did work. 

They survived through experience. 

Our man made constructs have undoubtedly changed things for us, but we don't need them. 

If all the worlds scientists suddenly disappeared then we must certainly die without them. Is that it?

 

 

Do you think it would be more moral, or responsible or honest of us to let you sink?

 

I think it would be more honest of you to notice that I am not sinking.

 

 

In today's world none of us can survive without middlemen. Apart from a few vegetables I don't grow my own food. Apart from some fallen tree limbs I don't provide my own heating. I don't build my own transport. I don't construct my own computer. Etc. Human civilisation is based upon middle men.

 Agreed. 

We're not talking about the fact that I require other humans in order to survive.

Were talking about the necessity of a specializer who you think I must look to in order to understand a thing that any of us are capable of understanding. 

I don't need a middle man to tell me that I'll get wet when I go out in the rain. 

It's not a thing necessary to my survival to need to understand exactly how gravity works. 

I do not need a middle man to tell me what should be important to me about reality.

That is where the middle man becomes a priest rather than an educator. 

 

Strawman fallacy. If you don't listen to science you are going to be more ignorant than you need to be. You are free to make that choice, just don't pretend that it makes you less ignorant.

Again, I do not claim that we should not listen at all to science. 

 

Bollocks. Science follows the practice of methodological naturalism. It does not deny the existence of gods or the supernatural, it declares that as such entities, if they exist, are not subject to proper scientific study they will be ignored.

That's exactly my point. I understand why science can not study the possible gods of the various religions. 

However, religion is a very large part of the psyche of humans. It's integral to the way a vast majority of humanity lives 

life. If you think it has nothing to do with reality, then you are mistaken. 

 

A significant minority of scientists are theists. If individual scientists choose to decry religion that is independent of their science, no matter how much they may protest.

 

It certainly shows that they've seen nothing in science that would lead them to believe no god exists.

 

Continued in next post.

[PersonalPronoun]

Philosophy is dead? There are many ignorant scientists who believe this - and the lunancy of some philosophers helps justify their belief - but philosophy remains an important medium for understanding the world and (remarkably) about the only valid alternative to investigating reality other than science. I say remarkably because although we have asked you for alternatives to science for discovering reality you do not seem to have offered it as such an alternative.

 

It's because I never intended to offer an alternative. I've repeatedly said this. Not an alternative but a collaborative.

 

1. Your question came out of left field and its intent was wholly obscure.

 

 

I meant it to be obscure so as to get an unbiased answer.

I see how that was a mistake.

 

2. The first two quotations perfectly support the position we have been taking and seem quite at odds with all you have been saying. Kaku is not saying that because our brain is really complex that we can just think things up and they will be right. He is likely saying that using this complex device, combined with the power of the scientific method we can learn great things.

I'm sure you believe you know what he meant when he made his quote. 

I didn't suggest, in any way, that this quote suggests that we can make things up and they will be right.

 

I am suggesting that the brain itself is far more powerful than any method you can use to study it.

 

Wheeler is suggesting that we approach a point where physics may be able to answer the "why" questions as well as the "how" questions. That's a debatable point, upon which I have no settled opinion.

 

Really? You completely threw out the whole first part of the quote, in which he is suggesting that there are elements in the universe that exist as undefined things until we define them, or until they interact with other things that define them. 

Wheeler made it pretty clear that he believed that we influence reality. 

He also suggested the two slit experiment with a gravitational lens, and suggested that if we looked all the way back to the big bang, our choices could change the quantum history of the universe.  

 

The third quote sounds like Hawking is arguing for the Strong Antrhopic Principle. I had not thought that matches Hawkings thinking, so I would need to see context before commenting further.

That's ok. I don't require you to tell me what you think he means. 

What I mean is that I believe we, as a part of the universe, do the same things (albeit on a possibly smaller scale) as the rest of the universe does. 

We help create reality. There is nothing wrong with predicting it.

However, if predicting it is the only thing you do, then you are missing an opportunity to be actively and purposely engaged in helping to build it.

 

 

Executive Summary

Our continued dialogue is prompted by a desire to correct your flawed thinking and get you to realise that evidence and logic are open to use by non-specialists too.

I suppose this to mean that our continued discussion relies on whether or not I'll accept your education. 

If so, then I'll repeat: I reserve the right to choose my lessons. If that's not acceptable, then I guess we have no reason to continue. 

I'm sorry if it can't be otherwise.

[PersonalPronoun]

No worries.  Forum threads are not conducive to multiple lines of communication.

Actually, it's one of the things I enjoy about these forums. 

When it feels as though everyone is against me, I simply forget who I'm talking to sometimes. 

Anyway, I agree that it's not a big deal. 

 

As such, I bring you back to my entry to this discussion.  I identified a statement you had made that seemed to me to be at the center of our differing views of our realities.  "What, other than science, do you propose as being an authority in understanding reality?  How have you determined that this other approach is useful to understand reality?"

I have determined that philosophy, religion, everyday life's experience, our will, our science, the entirety of human experience is necessary to get the truest possible understanding of reality that we can have. 

 

I have determined that this approach is useful because I have paid attention to the way people live their lives. 

I have seen what happens when we "sup" on only science. You admit it yourself below. People will use the produce of science in EVERY way that they can think of. 

That in itself is not the fault of science or it's practitioners, if I suggested that was so, then I did not mean to do so. 

 

"I am not asking you to accept my claim that the soul exists as anything more than a claim that my soul exists." Then as far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over regarding your soul.  You've provided nothing other than your assertion that your soul exists.  I would be a fool to accept your assertion to be accurate.

 

I agree that there is not and was not a use for discussing my belief in the soul. Again, I didn't bring it up for that reason. 

It was merely an example. 

 

As for your other questions, science can be used to do harm as much as it can be used to do good.  Science is amoral.  What humans choose to do with testable knowledge is their own business.  Science can be used to show that clear cutting of rainforests is detrimental.  Science can also be used to show that clear cutting of rainforests provides fertile land in which to grow crops.  There is no value judgement involved.  Show me a claim that is capable of being shown to be false, and I will say that the claim is scientific.

What you say here is exactly the point I am making. We humans, (I assume scientists are humans as well,) act irresponsibly with our science. It seems fairly clear that science alone is leaving us lacking in something. 

I suggest that that something is "moral" responsibility. 

 

Spirituality (I'm not talking about religion, though I maintain that religion does have positive uses,) can help us grow a little in the responsibility department. 

 

I'm sure that you are aware that most scientists feel that we are being irresponsible to our children's future world. 

I'm sure that you are aware that everybody thinks its someone else's fault.

 

So, there's a body of people that are capable of using the very tool we misuse the most, to show people a better way. 

This does not necessarily equal a smoking gun, but since science could help, and since the practitioners of science have to live here too, I feel justified in suggesting they help fix the problem instead of maintaining their neutrality. 

If they could look around with an open mind, and see that the reality we are creating here on our home needs more than science alone, then they are in a very superior position to make a difference. 

 

I believe very strongly in the ability of human beings to be the most noble beings in the universe. 

I believe that we have the ability to fix the things we are breaking. Again, all through history we have shown an extraordinary ability to control our environment. 

 

I don't mean to be patronizing when I say that it is the elitist attitude that "ours is the best" that is shared by all of the groups of people, and it is that very elitism that causes all of us to not just ignore the value of others, but discriminate against them, to disrespect them, and to completely miss the potential of all of us. 

 

My biggest mistake in this debate has been to attempt to speak your language in order to get this point across. 

It was an experiment. I see that the experiment was unsuccessful. 

Next time, I'll try something different. 

[pgrmdave]

I don't understand why you continuously think that I am unaware of the errors in my thinking. 

I've admitted it freely nearly every time you have mentioned it.

In fact, I've claimed that it's impossible for human beings not to have errors in their thinking or implied it at the very least.

You keep saying that you know you don't know things. Then you argue that your ignorance means that you have special knowledge that science is deficient. You claim to not understand science, then you ignore those who know more about it and are trying to explain it.

 

 

The fact is, I don't care what you believe about the soul, or what he believes about the soul. 

But in accusing me of baseless claims, it seems wrong somehow to be making them himself. 

You guys refuse to see that? Ok. I'll let it go.

The burden of proof is on you if you claim the soul exists. If you provide no basis then your belief is baseless. It is not an insult, it is simply a tautological statement. Your claims are baseless because they have been provided no basis. And no, saying "I believe it because I believe it" is not a basis - a claim cannot support itself.

 

 

It's not pride. My position from the beginning is that I do not consider science to be the final authority. 

This means that I am ok with not having the understanding of science that you have.

Do you not see the problem here? "I don't understand science well, but I do not consider it the final authority. Other people who understand science better do consider it the final authority. But because I don't understand it well I will simply repeat my position." Your ignorance is not equivalent to my knowledge. You cannot simultaneously claim to have a lesser understanding of science and a better understanding of science.

 

 

Furthermore, I've only felt it necessary to keep repeating it because you keep throwing it at me.

I'm capable of asking for the education I wish for myself. 

You on the other hand seem incapable of putting the teacher aside.

Perhaps you have no social understanding of how unhelpful it is to a student to be told he is wrong in everything he says.

You seem like an intelligent person - that's the only reason this has gone on so long. Because all three of us have reason to believe that, given enough time and thought, you'll understand why you have been wrong in (nearly) everything you've said. Thus we tell you what is wrong in everything you say because we are of the belief not only that you can understand the world better, but that you want to understand the world better.

 

 

 

Your final impression is almost correct. I can see that I can't show you the support that I feel exists, in any kind of way that would be acceptable to you, but I still believe it might be true. 

In spite of what ever evidence you do not have, it would be nice if, just once, you could admit that a thing you have no evidence for is still possible.

A thing for which there is no evidence can be possible. But there is no more reason to believe in that thing than in the uncountably infinite things which have been imagined and which have yet to be imagined for which there is no evidence. Every god, every myth, every comic book, every novel, every daydream - all things for which there is no evidence, and the vast majority of which we don't even consider as existing. A thing for which there cannot be evidence would be very different - that would be something irrelevant to considering (If something has a measurable effect on the universe, then there can be evidence. If something has no measurable effect on the universe, then it doesn't change anything whether it exists or not).

 

Black holes, which you mentioned, were not assumed to exist from the beginning. They were a mathematical possibility, which meant that they weren't impossible, and they were something for which there could be evidence, which meant that they could have evidence, but our tools at the time were not sufficient to provide strong evidence for them. Over time, we built better and more accurate tools for measurement and were able to provide strong enough evidence in favor of the existence of black holes that they are now assumed to exist (in the same sense that we assume the moon and the sun to exist). The existence of black holes also provided more evidence for the models we have of the universe, showing that the mathematics we were using had strong predictive uses.

 

And that's what science is - it is a tool for use in predicting how the universe behaves. And it's accurate. It's, in fact, more accurate than anything else we've ever found. This is a point that you haven't addressed, preferring instead to retreat to your "science isn't the 'final authority'" without providing any real meat behind that statement. You apparently don't think there are any better ways of predicting the universe. You don't seem to think that science is deficient at making predictions. You think that people are unethical in how they use their knowledge, but that seems unrelated to whether or not science has predictive value.

 

 

 

 

Especially when we so often make things possible that were not possible before.

Only in an engineering sense. We know that we cannot travel faster than C (through propulsion, at least - you can't add energy to a vehicle to make it travel faster than C, but you might be able to mimic the effects through things like wormholes. On the other hand, the current models imply that even with wormholes you couldn't send information - like highly structured matter - faster than C in any capacity, which would mean that all that would come out of the wormhole on the other side would be light and/or heat. Bummer.). We know, for example, that splitting the atom will release a given amount of energy - there's no getting around that. There was never a science reason why we couldn't fly, only reasons why we couldn't fly with the materials we had at the time with the propulsion methods we had at the time. Engineers took the science we had and made new materials and new propulsion methods and were able to fly. Science doesn't hold us back - it enables us to build more things.

 

 

I don't mind your rejection of my idea, or any of my ideas. 

I mind the assumption, or implied assumption, that I should give up my ideas and submit to your education just because you reject them.

The assumption is that you don't know much about science (because you've said as much) and that science is the most effective framework to understanding the universe. We don't think you should submit to us - but that if you wish to grow and learn how things work, learning from those who know more than you is much more likely to work than rejecting other people's knowledge because it's not your own.

 

 

You do not know what might be revealed in the future. 

As you suggested with Kuhn, the paradigm will change.

The models will change - the manner in which we arrive at those models, that we test those models, and that we decide which ones to use will not.

 

 

I know (in spite of what you think of me saying it,) that in the future there's likely be another Einstein, who is going to turn the science world on its ear, and reveal that things that you currently think ridiculous, are indeed possible.

Einstein didn't turn science on its ear. He proposed a hypothesis, performed experiments, gathered the data, and arrived at a conclusion that was published in peer reviewed journals. It was, like, the most 'science-y' thing it could've been. Nothing at all was overturned in terms of what science is, how science works, or what science does. All that he did was change the model that was being used to make predictions.

 

 

It's difficult for me to understand this. 

I did not, do not, and will not reject science. 

I did not, do not, and will not suggest anything in its place. 

I suggest that it shouldn't be taken all by itself.

Science is interested in nothing but predictions. What else do you think should be used to make predictions?

 

 

 

I have very clearly stated that all of our experiences in reality together are what I am advocating.

This is exactly one of the causes of my own frustration. You guys keep saying I'm not listening while you are clearly not listening either. 

You guys accuse me over and over again of failing to posit an alternative when the entire point is not an alternative but an addition.

So what's the addition that makes predictions that add to the value of the predictive power of science?

 

 

 

We lived reality for a long long time without the predictive power of science. 

Our ancestors made us possible by paying attention in the moment, seeing that this didn't work, and that did work. 

They survived through experience. 

Our man made constructs have undoubtedly changed things for us, but we don't need them. 

If all the worlds scientists suddenly disappeared then we must certainly die without them. Is that it?

No? I mean, I'm a programmer. If all the programmers and programs suddenly disappeared would everybody die? Or would, I dunno...the world just get kinda sucky without any software? You're right, of course, that science is not necessary for life. Nor even for making predictions - you can make predictions without science! You can even make accurate predictions without science, and even ones that are useful! Science, however, will still allow you to be *more* accurate.

 

Like, if you want to grow crops, you don't need science - people can grow crops without knowing a lick about nitrogen levels, or pH balance. But science has allowed us to grow more food, to feed more people, and to do so in a more healthy way. But that doesn't mean science is necessary - only necessary to feed the people we're currently feeding to the degree we're currently feeding them using the resources that we currently use.

 

Or, like - we don't *need* transportation devices. Or houses. Or clothing. Or even fire! Homo Sapiens got along just fine without them, but that doesn't mean those things add no value, or that those things are absolutely necessary for a healthy and modern existence.

 

Your bizarre obsession with things being necessary for life is strange - is philosophy necessary? Morals? Language?

[pgrmdave]

 

We're not talking about the fact that I require other humans in order to survive.

Were talking about the necessity of a specializer who you think I must look to in order to understand a thing that any of us are capable of understanding.

Except very few people are capable of understanding a lot of what science does.

 

I don't need a middle man to tell me that I'll get wet when I go out in the rain.

No, but you'll need one if you want the weekend forecast.

 

It's not a thing necessary to my survival to need to understand exactly how gravity works.

Again with the survival thing? Talking on the internet isn't necessary for your survival, but you seem to enjoy that :)

 

 

I do not need a middle man to tell me what should be important to me about reality.

That is where the middle man becomes a priest rather than an educator.

It's a good thing that science doesn't do that then. Science gives you models to make predictions. Nothing else. It doesn't distinguish "good" and "bad" because those things have no predictive value (nor any measurability). It doesn't have levels of importance, though scientists themselves may - the science is neutral.

 

 

 

 

That's exactly my point. I understand why science can not study the possible gods of the various religions. 

However, religion is a very large part of the psyche of humans. It's integral to the way a vast majority of humanity lives 

life. If you think it has nothing to do with reality, then you are mistaken.

Science studies religious belief all the time! Science never, ever has denied the existence of religions. Scientists have measured the states of the brain during meditation and prayer, and how religions have affected the history of societies, and even the economics of religion! But there's still never been any good evidence of any particular religion having any good claim of predictive authority. Few religions even have testable cases, and when they do either the tests fail or the tests don't stand up to much scrutiny and are not repeatable.

 

 

It certainly shows that they've seen nothing in science that would lead them to believe no god exists.

This is a wonderfully convoluted sentence. Science weighs evidence. Where there is no evidence, science simply follows the evidence. There is no evidence of unicorns, so science doesn't assume unicorns exist. Should the evidence change in the future, science will change with the evidence. There is no evidence of gods, so science doesn't assume gods exist. Should the evidence change in the future, science will change with the evidence. It's wonderfully neutral that way.

 

 

 

It's because I never intended to offer an alternative. I've repeatedly said this. Not an alternative but a collaborative.

Collaborative with what?

 

 

 

 

I have determined that philosophy, religion, everyday life's experience, our will, our science, the entirety of human experience is necessary to get the truest possible understanding of reality that we can have.

And yet when we've asked you to provide evidence as to why you think that, you either ignore it or you simply say that you think that because you think it's true. We've provided you with evidence as to why that is a flawed way of understanding reality, and your response is simply "why aren't you listening to me?". We are listening to you - you think that science should be used alongside experience to understand the world. I hear you and I understand that statement and I disagree with it and think it's wrong and will lead to wrong conclusions.

 

 

I have determined that this approach is useful because I have paid attention to the way people live their lives.

"I have determined that listening to life experience is useful because I listened to life experience" - rephrased so you understand why people are getting frustrated with you.

 

I have seen what happens when we "sup" on only science. You admit it yourself below. People will use the produce of science in EVERY way that they can think of. 

That in itself is not the fault of science or it's practitioners, if I suggested that was so, then I did not mean to do so.

You didn't suggest so, you said so.

 

 

What you say here is exactly the point I am making. We humans, (I assume scientists are humans as well,) act irresponsibly with our science. It seems fairly clear that science alone is leaving us lacking in something. 

I suggest that that something is "moral" responsibility.

And I think that my local McDonalds should sell tacos, but just like McDonalds isn't in the business of selling tacos, science isn't in the business of morality. Morality has nothing to do with predicting the future, so it has no measurable value in science.

 

This does not necessarily equal a smoking gun, but since science could help, and since the practitioners of science have to live here too, I feel justified in suggesting they help fix the problem instead of maintaining their neutrality. 

If they could look around with an open mind, and see that the reality we are creating here on our home needs more than science alone, then they are in a very superior position to make a difference.

Strawman. Scientists, including ones here, aren't neutral. We are very actively trying to make the world a better place and fix the problems that have come before us and reduce the problems going forward. You're arguing against a group of people that doesn't exist.

[PersonalPronoun]

Alright, let's take a break from the back and forth for a moment. 

 

If I am correct:

 

1) You guys are trying to get me to understand that science is the best possible way we have of predicting reality.

 

2) My ignorance of science is keeping me from understanding number 1.

 

3) Anything that can not be studied by, and predicted by science is unimportant to our understanding of reality. 

(insert number 2)

 

4) We human beings have absolutely no effect on reality. 

It's a one way proposition. Reality effects us, never the other way around. 

(insert number 2) 

 

 Do I understand your side of the debate? 

 

Could you please provide a like understanding that you have of my side of the debate, but in a separate post? 

[pgrmdave]

1) You guys are trying to get me to understand that science is the best possible way we have of predicting reality.

Correct.

 

2) My ignorance of science is keeping me from understanding number 1.

This appears to be true.

 

 

3) Anything that can not be studied by, and predicted by science is unimportant to our understanding of reality.

Sort of - anything that has any effect on anything can be studied by science. Anything that does not have an effect on anything is unimportant. The way you're phrasing it inverts it, essentially seeing the relationship between cart and horse and determining that the cart must push the horse. It's not that science determines what is important to understanding reality, but that reality is what is studied by science. If it is a part of reality (that is, if it has any effects on anything in any capacity) then it can be studied by science.

 

4) We human beings have absolutely no effect on reality. 

It's a one way proposition. Reality effects us, never the other way around. 

(insert number 2)

No, that's not what anybody's been saying. We are no more or less special than any other parts of the universe. And if you read what I said above it should be obvious - since we can be studied by science we must have an effect on reality. It's not a mystical relationship though, and it has nothing to do with a conscious mind observing something vs. not observing. If that's what you take away from the uncertainty principle then you should go back and realize that it's an entirely mathematical formula.

 

 

Do I understand your side of the debate?

You're close - so close. You start out understanding well, but then you start to veer away and your misunderstandings multiply. Edited February 18, 2015 by pgrmdave

[PersonalPronoun]

Ok, so let's go at these one at a time. 

1) You guys are trying to get me to understand that science is the best possible way we have of predicting reality.

 

 

Correct.

Ok.

I've agreed to this.

I've countered by suggesting that "predicting" reality is perhaps not the most important thing in our understanding of reality. 

 

I explained that counter by positing that predicting reality does not explain to us the value of scientific findings in our lives. 

 

You guys responded to the effect that doing that is not in the purview of science. 

 

So then, are you saying that in understanding our reality, it is not important to know the value in our lives of our scientific predictions? 

[sanctus]

I am a scientist as well, but I do not have such a hard stance as pgrmdave, eclogite and jmjones. I do agree with their points but I think that experience can also be turned into a scientific approach. Here is an example:

you have been a tuna fisherman for many years. Suddenly, one year you catch much less tuna and then you deduce that tuna has been overfished by mankind and that we are destroying their habitat.

 

If one stops there then I completely agree with the other three: this is not science. But if you ask all your colleagues about that and ask them to ask their friends too and all report back to you that they caught much less. Then it can become a scientific approach, since this cumulated experience from many fishermen is equivalent to data-gathering, if in addition they all report that the water is greener than usual (for higher algae presence) you might actually get a good hint that indeed the habitat is destroyed.

 

So experience is a fine thing and you can do do science with, but not with only your own experience. Simply because about your own experience you can not know whether it is a global trend or you are experiencing a statistical random fluctuation.