Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mysterious Questions, Mysterious Answers and Supernaturalism
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 1 of 32 (590034)
11-05-2010 2:08 PM


Where does the Sun go at night, and what makes it move across the sky?
Why do earthquakes happen?
How did all of the numerous varieties of life come to be?
These are (or were, once upon a time) all mysterious questions that inspired human curiosity for millenia. A thousand years ago, the answers to these questions were much different from the answers we would give today.
In ancient Greece, you might have heard that the Sun is actually the bright, golden chariot wheel of Apollo as he drives across the sky, and that at night he travels through the Underworld until finally repeating his journey the next morning. Today, nearly anyone you ask will tell you that the Sun doesn't actually move (relative to the Earth anyway), that the Earth is turning and this creates the appearance of a moving Sun, and that the day/night cycle simply corresponds to whether your part of the Earth is facing toward or away from the Sun.
Earthquakes were once described as being caused by angry gods. Today, you would hear an explanation involving the movement of massive rock plates upon which the continents rest, and the buildup and release of pressure with corresponding sudden movement as they grind against each other.
The variety found in life is explained in multiple ways even today; ask a Creationist why there are so many varieties, and you'll be answered that a god created each "kind" ex nihilo. If you ask a biologist, you'll be told an explanation involving small changes that occur during reproduction, the spread of these changes when they give a reproductive or survival advantage throughout a breeding population, and the gradual accumulation of those changes eventually creating such divergence within the parent population that daughter populations can themselves be identified as new, distinct species.
What is the real difference between these answers? The immediate response seems to be that some of the answers call upon what we typically identify as "supernatural" forces, while the others are naturalistic.
But look deeper. A "supernatural" explanation is really just the attribution of the cause to an as-yet-unknown entity. In that way, "supernatural" explanations are not really all that different from dark matter in physics - a mysterious phenomenon is identified, and so a term is created ("god," "dark matter") as a label for the cause of that mysterious phenomenon, even though the actual cause remains an unknown.
The real difference (and the difference between the above "supernatural" explanations and dark matter) is that some of these answers are real answers with explanatory and predictive power (even when they still contain some unknowns, as with dark matter), while others are just mysterious answers to mysterious questions and stop curiosity in the intellectually lazy without actually increasing understanding.
What is a mysterious answer? A mysterious answer is an answer lacking in explanatory or predictive power. A mysterious answer is one that does not increase our understanding of the question it attempts to answer, and instead often utilizes vague, poorly defined (if defined at all) terms as a sort of password to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity. At its heart, a mysterious answer is one that appeals to an emotional sense of satisfaction rather than an actual increase in intellectual understanding.
Human beings are uncomfortable with the unknown. Our greatest weakness with regard to rational thought is not that we posses the capacity (and willingness) to make up stories to fill in those unknowns, but rather in our ability to feel satisfied with those stories to the point that we stop investigating mysterious phenomenon even when we still don't have a real explanation. In the case of religion, investigation (and especially the answers gained from further investigation when they contradict existing dogma) has historically been actively resisted in favor of the mysterious answer.
But despite resistance to discard those emotionally satisfying answers, you cannot answer a mysterious question with a mysterious answer. It's not really an answer at all. And "supernatural" explanations are simply one subset of mysterious answers - they exist outside the bounds of faith as well.
Fire has always been one of the keys to human civilization, and yet for the longest time we had no idea how it worked. A few centuries ago the prevailing theory involved a mysterious substance called "phlogiston" - flammable materials contained phlogiston, which was a mass-less, colorless, tasteless, odorless substance that is released during burning. A material is more or less flammable depending on the amount of phlogiston it contains, and there is no way to detect phlogiston except by measuring the flammability of the material.
This sounded reasonable at the time. Why does a candle burn? It has phlogiston in it, of course!
But the answer was mysterious. What is phlogiston, other than "that which burns?" What makes it burn? Why does phlogiston not always burn, even without a match or spark or friction to start the fire? What is combustion? Phlogiston theory was nothing more than a password for "the stuff that burns" that emotionally satisfied curiosity.
Thankfully phlogiston theory did not stop further investigation of combustion. The theory was discarded when modern models of chemistry provided an actual explanation for the mysterious phenomenon of fire, complete with predictive power to show, in advance of burning a substance, how hot the fire will be, what color, whether it will burn at all, what the products of the combustion will be, etc.
Predictive power is the key to any real answer. If your explanation of a mysterious phenomenon does not allow you to, in advance, make a prediction about the outcome of an experiment regarding that phenomenon that then proves to be accurate, then you don't really have an explanation at all - you have a mysterious answer. Your curiosity is being satisfied, but you really still don't know what's going on. Sounding reasonable is insufficient to be classified as a real explanation. Fantastical nonsense like Apollo's chariot sound reasonable (or did to those with the background information of the ancient Greeks, who knew little of the real nature of stars and solar systems). Only those theories that can make their own predictions (not simply fulfilling the predictions of other theories) and expose themselves to falsification can potentially be real answers.
In everyday life, mysterious answers are relatively harmless. Most people don't really know how a computer works - and if they ask, a simple answer like "there's a processor inside that uses programs to turn all the ones and zeroes into something you and I can understand and use" is usually enough to stop the average person's curiosity even though they still have no idea how the computer works. That's okay - most people will never find that they need that information anyway. In an ideal world, we would all seek to fully understand every topic and wouldn't waste time with mysterious answer; in reality we all have limited time and attention to spare.
But we need to recognize when our answers are mysterious, because confusing a mysterious answer for an actual explanation is dangerous. Mysterious answers are much more likely to be flat-out wrong (rather than just inaccurate and vague), while real explanations with accurate predictive power are more likely to be extremely accurate even if they aren't perfectly precise. Confusing a mysterious answer for a real explanation leads to overestimating one's own competence in a field - just because your personal curiosity has been satisfied on a topic does not mean you actually have any real competence. Confusing a mysterious answer for a real explanation can lead to defending the mysterious answer against a real explanation - especially if the mysterious answer offers greater emotional satisfaction than the real explanation. Confusing a mysterious answer for a real explanation leads to exalting falsehoods while disdaining facts, clinging to emotion while rejecting reason. Recognizing the real extent of our own understanding means ignoring the emotional sense of satisfied curiosity and rationally evaluating the real accuracy of our beliefs, and the limits of one's understanding.
Real answers require evidence that comes from the real world. Mysterious answers lack that requirement - and this means that mysterious answers often have no way of possibly describing the real world with accuracy except by pure, blind chance. If your answer for a mysterious phenomenon relies exclusively on "evidence" that is not entangled with the real world ("feelings," for example), your answer is mysterious, and is no better than a random guess.
But what about unknowns, where we don't have sufficient real-world evidence to form a real answer with predictive power? Nearly all "supernatural" hypotheses attempt to answer such questions, or at least this is the case when the hypothesis is generated. People flock to mysterious answers as a solution to their curiosity when there are no alternatives. Is it okay to accept a mysterious answer under such circumstances? Is it acceptable to state with [i]any/i amount of confidence from "I'm certain" all the way down to "I'm not really sure, but I like to think..." that a mysterious answer in this case is likely to be correct?
If I asked you to draw a map of the surface of a planet orbiting a distant star that nobody had ever seen, what would it look like? Would you draw a terrestrial planet like Earth, with oceans and lakes and rivers and mountains and deserts, or a gas giant with multicolored stripes of atmospheric gasses? Would it be the size of Mars, or larger than Jupiter? What are the chances, no matter what you draw, that your map would in any way look like the actual planet? Would it be reasonable to say, with any amount of confidence from "I'm sure" all the way down to "I'm not really sure, but I like to think that..." your map is even remotely accurate?
Would you even be sure there was a planet orbiting that star at all?
Mysterious answers that do not depend on evidence that is entangled with the real world are the absolute worst kind to believe, and it's extremely important to recognize these on sight. Fortunately, they're also the most obvious. They have no greater chance of being accurate than a hand-drawn map of a planet orbiting a distant star that nobody has ever seen or detected and which may or may not even exist. If someone claims to have an intangible, invisible, scentless, silent, mass-less dragon that does not respire or consume food or expel waste in their garage, there is absolutely no way that this person could have knowledge of this mysterious creature from evidence in the real world, and therefore all of the knowledge the person does possess about the creature comes from within his own imagination (draconic telepathy only counts if it is reproducible in other people, and even then only increases the probability that telepathy exists, not that the source is an otherwise undetectable dragon). People tend to fall for these sorts of mysterious answers when they have extreme emotional fondness for the answer, or where there are no competing answers because our ability to collect real-world evidence has not yet progressed to the point where we can form a rational theory on the subject.
Much more dangerous are those mysterious answers that sound like reasonable solutions. These are far more likely to be believed by even intelligent and rational people - they are intellectual traps. This encompasses such mysterious answers as "a deity guided evolution to result in humanity," or "the Grand Canyon was formed through erosion, like scientists say, but was actually formed rapidly by the waters of a global Flood as opposed to being cut from the rock slowly by a river over millions of years." These answers do not immediately sound mysterious, and to many people they sound perfectly credulous. They are, after all, offering what sounds like a "mechanism" in attributing a guiding force to evolution and specifying the specific cause of the erosion that formed the Grand Canyon. It is certainly conceivably possible that a deity could "guide" evolution, and to anyone without an education in hydrodynamics or geology, rock being eroded by moving water sounds like a lot more water moving much faster on a huge scale could cut a lot of rock much more quickly.
But answers like these are still not real answers - they are mysterious answers. The carry no predictive power. What appears to be a mechanism is instead a placeholder where the mechanism should be. By adding the guidance of a deity to the Theory of Evolution, you do not actually increase your understanding of how new species evolve - there is no mechanism for the divine interference, you can make no prediction as to where to look for the telltale signs of the deity's influence, and your answer is not based on any evidence gained from the real world. All you've done is suggest that, while combustion is the result of chemical reactions that produce heat and light in addition to their chemical products, the chemical components of the reaction must also contain phlogiston. You've stopped your curiosity for the question "is there something else guiding the evolution of life?" with a desirable thought rather than a testable predictive mechanism that would actually increase your understanding. Only by including the mechanism by which the proposed deity provides guidance to the well-known evolutionary process would the answer cease to be mysterious and be sufficient to satisfy curiosity. Claiming that the Flood caused the Grand Canyon does not in any way show how a Flood would ever cause any such formation, much like saying that flammable objects burn because they have phlogiston doesn't actually show why phlogiston is a reasonable answer.
So why do we continue to use mysterious answers? Why do we continue to confidently answer a mysterious question with a mysterious answer and pretend that we've actually solved the problem? Why does our curiosity become satisfied by what should obviously only spawn more questions? When someone, anyone, claims that the Earth was made in six days by a deity, why is the first word out of everyone's mouth not "how?" Why do the words "God can do anything" satisfy that question, without really answering it at all?
The only answer I can suggest is that emotional preference guides our beliefs to a far greater extent naturally than do reason and logic. For many of us, searching for an answer to a mysterious question is not simply a search for the facts behind a mysterious phenomenon; it's a search for an answer we like. If an answer fits better with our pre-existing views of the world, or better appeals to our sense of fairness, or otherwise lets us rest easier at night than competing hypotheses, we initially feel an urge to accept that answer as the correct one and stop additional research - after all, if we keep looking after we find the answer we like, we might have to confront the possibility of an answer we don't like that fits reality better.
Are there other possibilities? It seems incontrovertible that, in any sufficiently large group of people, several subgroups will hold mutually exclusive beliefs, and that many of these beliefs will be mysterious answers to mysterious questions. Some people will believe that prayer can heal the sick; some will believe that the Earth was Created with magic words by a single god some 6-10,000 years ago; some will believe that human suffering is due to the influence of long-dead brainwashed alien souls; some will believe in an afterlife, while others will believe in reincarnation; some will believe that a super-diluted solution of caffeine will act as a sleeping aid; some will believe that vaccines cause autism; some will believe that disease is not caused by germs, but rather by poor nutrition, misaligned "energy fields," and so on. Some of these answers will be religious, others will not. Every supernatural hypothesis I've ever heard takes the form of a mysterious answer, and many popular naturalistic hypotheses do as well.
Are all of these beliefs held because of an emotional preference, an artificial satisfaction of curiosity because a useless but preferred answer tends to be believed over a useful but less preferred one? It's the best answer I can come up with...but what about everyone else?
I think Faith and Belief is the best fit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-07-2010 10:50 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 4:23 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 17 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 7:39 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-08-2010 10:14 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 12-18-2010 11:17 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 12-10-2014 12:15 PM Rahvin has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 32 (590037)
11-05-2010 2:14 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 32 (590274)
11-07-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
11-05-2010 2:08 PM


He either Is or He ain't
Rahvin writes:
What is the real difference between these answers? The immediate response seems to be that some of the answers call upon what we typically identify as "supernatural" forces, while the others are naturalistic.
But look deeper. A "supernatural" explanation is really just the attribution of the cause to an as-yet-unknown entity. In that way, "supernatural" explanations are not really all that different from dark matter in physics - a mysterious phenomenon is identified, and so a term is created ("god," "dark matter") as a label for the cause of that mysterious phenomenon, even though the actual cause remains an unknown.
And God may well exist without our having created him as a concept. You are right though. We cannot know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 11-05-2010 2:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 12:14 PM Phat has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 4 of 32 (590483)
11-08-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
11-07-2010 10:50 AM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
And God may well exist without our having created him as a concept. You are right though. We cannot know.
...that's really not the topic I was going for here, Phat.
Whether deities exist or do not exist, whether we are capable of knowing or not capable of knowing, is not the point.
The point is that deities (and all other supernatural hypotheses) are mysterious answers to mysterious questions, and as such don't really answer any questions at all.
Let's use an example:
Q: What causes thunder and lightning?
A: Thor causes thunder and lightning with his mighty hammer.
This is a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. The mechanism proposed for causing thunder and lightning is "Thor and his mighty hammer," but that doesn't tell you anything at all. You cannot make any predictions based on it. If you were magically able to watch thunder and lightning being made by Thor, you would have no idea what to expect. What does he hit with his hammer to make thunder and lightning? Does he actually hit anything? Is there a magic word? Does Thor exist in multiple places at once to cause all of the simultaneous lightning strikes in the world, or can he do it all from one location? How does he target it? Can the hammer be reproduced?
The answer does not in any way increase your understanding about how thunder and lightning actually work. All it does is stp you from being curious.
The question is not whether we know if Thor exists or not, or whether it is possible to know. We have threads for that, and frankly I'm not interested in another go-around with RAZD on the subject.
The question for this thread is why people will accept mysterious answers and stop their curiosity when even a few minutes' thought plainly shows that the answer did not actually increase understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-07-2010 10:50 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 11-08-2010 12:46 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 4:39 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:44 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 11-08-2010 6:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 5 of 32 (590489)
11-08-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
11-08-2010 12:14 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
Rahvin writes:
The answer does not in any way increase your understanding about how thunder and lightning actually work. All it does is stp you from being curious.
The question is not whether we know if Thor exists or not, or whether it is possible to know. We have threads for that, and frankly I'm not interested in another go-around with RAZD on the subject.
The question for this thread is why people will accept mysterious answers and stop their curiosity when even a few minutes' thought plainly shows that the answer did not actually increase understanding.
Perhaps in reality, people don't really want to understand. They want everything to be a mystery. They don't want to find answers to mysteries...at least not all of them, for that leaves no room for a power greater than themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 12:14 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 6:01 PM Phat has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 6 of 32 (590490)
11-08-2010 12:47 PM


Children
My 6 year old son has become rather inquisitive as of late. He asks all sorts of science type questions ranging from "where did the water come from" to "how did the earth form". Now, I am not one to blow these off and I hate to tell him I don't know, so I try and try to answer them as simplistically as I can while still providing knowledge. Each and every time, I think to myself "fuck me I wish I was a creationist so I could just say "goddidit" and have that be the end of it". But what good would that do? What would he learn other than to just move on to the next question?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 32 (590531)
11-08-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
11-05-2010 2:08 PM


A Cause is a Cause Beacuse
... the actual cause remains an unknown.
False. The cause has become known. Just because it wasn't the currently accepted scientific cause does not mean it wasn't a cause. Their cause may have been wrong, so may ours be wrong. A cause is a cause; it's known if it's known.
The real difference (and the difference between the above "supernatural" explanations and dark matter) is that some of these answers are real answers with explanatory and predictive power...
Who says a 'real' answer must have these features?
others are just mysterious answers to mysterious questions and stop curiosity in the intellectually lazy without actually increasing understanding.
Everything stops curiosity in the intellectual lazyas would the 'real' answers you discuss. Fortunately, though, not everyone is intellectually lazy, and the 'mysterious answers to mysterious questions' often implant great degrees of curiosity in such folk. In fact, answers that more thoroughly answer the question stop more curiosity than the less thorough answers which are inevitable prompts for additional 'whys'.
A mysterious answer is one that does not increase our understanding of the question it attempts to answer, and instead often utilizes vague, poorly defined (if defined at all) terms as a sort of password to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity.
Well, since you've chosen to define a 'mysterious answer' as one that is meant 'to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity', then I guess it would be true that, given this definition, all 'mysterious answers' will stop curiosity. But now, can you provide some examples of answers that would fit this definition of 'mysterious'?
Our greatest weakness with regard to rational thought is not that we posses the capacity (and willingness) to make up stories to fill in those unknowns, but rather in our ability to feel satisfied with those stories to the point that we stop investigating mysterious phenomenon even when we still don't have a real explanation.
I think you'll find this false. Ever heard of a kid who was satisfied with an answer? It is human nature to continue questioning; it takes a life of brainwashing to beat that out of folk.
But the answer was mysterious. What is phlogiston, other than "that which burns?" What makes it burn? Why does phlogiston not always burn, even without a match or spark or friction to start the fire? What is combustion? Phlogiston theory was nothing more than a password for "the stuff that burns" that emotionally satisfied curiosity.
Of course, as you point out, there is no satisfying of curiosity with this hypothesis; you yourself have listed a load of questions that can be asked even if we accept the phlogiston argument.
Predictive power is the key to any real answer.
Why? What kinds of predictions? Lots of good answers offer nothing in the way of 'predictive power'.
"Where's the Lasagna?"
"Aisle ten, ma'am."
"Well shit, you dope-faced little punk; that ain't no real answer... I can't predict nothing outa that!"
Seriously, though, why should an answer have to allow one to make predictions to be regarded as real?
If your explanation of a mysterious phenomenon does not allow you to, in advance, make a prediction about the outcome of an experiment regarding that phenomenon that then proves to be accurate, then you don't really have an explanation at all - you have a mysterious answer.
Again, why?
In everyday life, mysterious answers are relatively harmless. Most people don't really know how a computer works - and if they ask, a simple answer like "there's a processor inside that uses programs to turn all the ones and zeroes into something you and I can understand and use"
That's a perfectly fine answer, providing the inquirer with more information than they had before, and certainly provides ample material for a curios mind to explore further. There's absolutely nothing 'mysterious' about it.
But we need to recognize when our answers are mysterious, because confusing a mysterious answer for an actual explanation is dangerous. Mysterious answers are much more likely to be flat-out wrong (rather than just inaccurate and vague)
But the answer in your computer example was just that: slightly inaccurate and vague. Far from 'mysterious' and far from being a curiosity stopper.
If your answer for a mysterious phenomenon relies exclusively on "evidence" that is not entangled with the real world ("feelings," for example), your answer is mysterious, and is no better than a random guess.
Your computer example, of course, does not meet any of these criteria; I'm still not seeing why it is 'mysterious'.
Only by including the mechanism by which the proposed deity provides guidance to the well-known evolutionary process would the answer cease to be mysterious and be sufficient to satisfy curiosity. Claiming that the Flood caused the Grand Canyon does not in any way show how a Flood would ever cause any such formation, much like saying that flammable objects burn because they have phlogiston doesn't actually show why phlogiston is a reasonable answer.
I cannot figure out how this ties in with anything else you've said.
an artificial satisfaction of curiosity
What does this mean?
Are all of these beliefs held because of an emotional preference, an artificial satisfaction of curiosity because a useless but preferred answer tends to be believed over a useful but less preferred one? It's the best answer I can come up with...but what about everyone else?
Beliefs are held for a lot of reasons; but nothing in this question has anything to do with the rest of your post.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 11-05-2010 2:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 5:51 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 32 (590534)
11-08-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
11-08-2010 12:14 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
The question for this thread is why people will accept mysterious answers and stop their curiosity
There are a lot of reasons: they may not care, they may be stupid, they may be tired, they may be hungry, they might have to go take a shit before they can ask more questions. A good way to answer your question, then, is not with a list of possible reasons people may not inquire further, but with a question back at you: What makes you accept 'non-mysterious' answers?
the answer did not actually increase understanding.
Of course, none of the examples you've given so far fit with what you are claiming.
"Where does lightning come from?"
"Thor's hammer."
"Ooo... I know more than I did before..."
Where is there a failure to create knowledge, understanding, promote further curiosity, or anything of the sort? I realize you do not like these answers; that's fine. I realize these answers are not in accordance with modern scientifically-accepted explanations; that's fine. I realize these answers aren't the best and perhaps somewhat silly; that's fine. I fail, however, to realize how these answers are guilty of the things of which you claim them guilty.
I also fail to see how the purpose of this thread (as you claim it) in anyway has warranted the nonsense claims you made in that mile-long, thousand-topic OP. Perhaps, though, it has something to do with this:
The question is not whether we know if Thor exists or not, or whether it is possible to know. We have threads for that, and frankly I'm not interested in another go-around with RAZD on the subject.
But, of course, what the hell else could you have been expecting starting a thread like this? The question that you claim this thread to be about is just silly and clearly too open to make for a good discussion topic. There is certainly no other reason to have started this thread other than to have made a bunch of ridiculous claims about the nature of answers, curiosity, etc. that you knew would rile up those with whom you disagree only to charge anyone of those opponents who attempted to reply to those claims with being off-topic, thus being able to infuriate those folk.
So, what is the 'real' topic here?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 12:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 9 of 32 (590535)
11-08-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
11-08-2010 12:14 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
The [supernatural] answer does not in any way increase your understanding about how thunder and lightning actually work. All it does is stp you from being curious.
Even more, at no time in human history have we verified that the supernatural is the cause of anything. Not only does it stop you from being curious, it also has the side effect of making you wrong when there is the discovery of a verifiable cause for an observed phenomenon.
I also do not know of a single "mysterious answer" that has any pragmatic use. You shouldn't stand in the middle of an open field holding a 10 foot metal antenna while standing in a pool of salt water whether or not Thor makes lightning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 12:14 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 5:13 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 5:55 PM Taq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (590537)
11-08-2010 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taq
11-08-2010 4:44 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
Not only does it stop you from being curious
Of course, it does no such thing.
it also has the side effect of making you wrong when there is the discovery of a verifiable cause for an observed phenomenon.
Who cares about being wrong? Being wrong is how we learn; being right is boring.
You shouldn't stand in the middle of an open field holding a 10 foot metal antenna while standing in a pool of salt water whether or not Thor makes lightning.
You should definitely sacrifice a bull, though.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:44 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 11 of 32 (590540)
11-08-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
11-08-2010 4:23 PM


Re: A Cause is a Cause Beacuse
... the actual cause remains an unknown.
False. The cause has become known. Just because it wasn't the currently accepted scientific cause does not mean it wasn't a cause. Their cause may have been wrong, so may ours be wrong. A cause is a cause; it's known if it's known.
This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with current scientific causes.
In my OP, I even gave an example of a mysterious answer that was held as the then-currently accepted scientific answer for the cause of fire.
The entire point of a mysterious answer is that it is an answer that looks like it has answered the question, but has not really done so.
Q: What causes combustion?
A: Phlogiston.
This is a mysterious answer. You still don;t know what causes combustion - you just know an odd word. Even if I further define that phlogiston is a tasteless, odorless, invisible, intangible, massless substance that causes combustion, you still don;t know why it burns. You may as well have written "Insert Answer Here" for all the good the word "phlogiston" does you.
This was not a supernaturalist mysterious answer. This was a mysterious answer held by that era's scientists.
I specifically stated in my OP that supernatural answers are one subset of mysterious answers, and I thought I was perfectly clear that I was not limiting my discussion to only the supernatural.
Perhaps you're surprised to see me writing it, but scientists can fall for the same intellectual traps that non-scientists can.
The real difference (and the difference between the above "supernatural" explanations and dark matter) is that some of these answers are real answers with explanatory and predictive power...
Who says a 'real' answer must have these features?
Because obviously, Jon, answers that do not have those features do not actually answer questions.
If you ask me what makes a computer work, and I answe "magic," do you have any idea how a computer works? If you asked me what makes cars go, and I answered "phlogiston," would you be able to make a car?
Everything stops curiosity in the intellectual lazyas would the 'real' answers you discuss. Fortunately, though, not everyone is intellectually lazy, and the 'mysterious answers to mysterious questions' often implant great degrees of curiosity in such folk. In fact, answers that more thoroughly answer the question stop more curiosity than the less thorough answers which are inevitable prompts for additional 'whys'.
Of course real answers stop curiosity. The problem of mysterious answers is that they stop curiosity when they should not, because the question has not been answered.
Let's boil this down further:
Imagine my car was broken yesterday, and today it's been repaired.
I know that the sequence of events was:
1) car broken
2) something happened
3) car working
I ask what happened to restore my car to working order. The response I get is "Fred fixed it."
What do I know now?
1) car broken
2) something happened involving Fred
3) car fixed
I have no idea what Fred did. I dont know what made the car not work. I dont know what made the car start working again. All I know is it had something to do with Fred.
If my curiosity stops at this point, I am accepting a mysterious answer - my question, "what happened to my broken car to make it work again," has not really been answered. I still know something happened, but I don't know what it was. All I know is Fred is apparently responsible. If my car broke again with the same problem, I wouldn't be able to fix it - all I'd be able to do is take it to Fred.
This isn't a problem if I recognize that I am accepting a mysterious answer and allowing my curiosity to stop because I just don;t really care, or I don't have time for a real explanation. This is a problem if I think this means I somehow understand how to fix cars when they are broken.
Well, since you've chosen to define a 'mysterious answer' as one that is meant 'to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity', then I guess it would be true that, given this definition, all 'mysterious answers' will stop curiosity. But now, can you provide some examples of answers that would fit this definition of 'mysterious'?
I gave several. Perhaps you didn't read?
Why? What kinds of predictions? Lots of good answers offer nothing in the way of 'predictive power'.
"Where's the Lasagna?"
"Aisle ten, ma'am."
"Well shit, you dope-faced little punk; that ain't no real answer... I can't predict nothing outa that!"
Seriously, though, why should an answer have to allow one to make predictions to be regarded as real?
...
Of course I can predict something with that answer. I can predict that, if I look up and down aisle 10, I will find lasagna.
Do you think about things before you post them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 4:23 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 6:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 32 (590542)
11-08-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taq
11-08-2010 4:44 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
Even more, at no time in human history have we verified that the supernatural is the cause of anything. Not only does it stop you from being curious, it also has the side effect of making you wrong when there is the discovery of a verifiable cause for an observed phenomenon.
It's far worse than being unverified. The problem with mysterious answers (supernatural or otherwise) is that you could not possibly verify them as explanations, because they don't really explain anything in the first place.
How could you ever verify phlogiston theory? Saying that "flammable stuff has phlogiston in it, and that's why it burns" doesn't tell you why anything burns, it just shifts the question to "okay, what the hell is phlogiston, and why does it burn?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:44 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 13 of 32 (590543)
11-08-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
11-08-2010 12:46 PM


Re: He either Is or He ain't
Perhaps in reality, people don't really want to understand. They want everything to be a mystery. They don't want to find answers to mysteries...at least not all of them, for that leaves no room for a power greater than themselves.
So, perhaps people accept mysterious answers because they really like mysteries and don;t really want an answer?
I have to admit, that's hard for me to wrap my head around. Curiosity is supposed to e the desire to answer the question...I can't imagine wanting to remain curious and never find an answer. I can accept not having all of the answers simply because I'm not omniscient, but that's different.
"Let's make sure to keep some gaps for our god-of-the-gaps to hide in" strikes me as a rather, well, stupid philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 11-08-2010 12:46 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 32 (590546)
11-08-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rahvin
11-08-2010 12:14 PM


Refining the Topic
Really, Jon. It is bad form to challenge the point of a topic originating from someone else! It seems clear enough to me.
Rahvin writes:
Where does the Sun go at night, and what makes it move across the sky?
Why do earthquakes happen?
How did all of the numerous varieties of life come to be?
These are (or were, once upon a time) all mysterious questions that inspired human curiosity for millenia. A thousand years ago, the answers to these questions were much different from the answers we would give today.
Thus, the type of answers Rahvin prefers are answers that are supportable...backed by replicable and unbiased evidence or constructed understanding.
Rahvin writes:
What is a mysterious answer? A mysterious answer is an answer lacking in explanatory or predictive power. A mysterious answer is one that does not increase our understanding of the question it attempts to answer, and instead often utilizes vague, poorly defined (if defined at all) terms as a sort of password to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity. At its heart, a mysterious answer is one that appeals to an emotional sense of satisfaction rather than an actual increase in intellectual understanding.
I will say that Rahvin believes that human beings are uncomfortable with the unknown, but I would argue that some of us are comfortable with the unknown as it speaks of something or someone greater than human wisdom and reasoning as the cause and source behind it.
Rahvin writes:
you cannot answer a mysterious question with a mysterious answer.
Good point. If I ask a rational question...say...why are humans greedy, for example...I can choose either a rational answer or a mysterious answer.
I would add that if I asked a mysterious question...I would usually conclude that I did not know.
Rahvin writes:
The question for this thread is why people will accept mysterious answers and stop their curiosity when even a few minutes' thought plainly shows that the answer did not actually increase understanding.
Some of us may believe that since we cant know everything, why try. Others would say that "God knows everything.." (Mysterious Answer) which stops all further investigation. Still others would discard the mysterious answers for good...continuing to press forward with rationality.
oh and BTW, Jon.
Jon writes:
There is certainly no other reason to have started this thread other than to have made a bunch of ridiculous claims about the nature of answers, curiosity, etc. that you knew would rile up those with whom you disagree only to charge anyone of those opponents who attempted to reply to those claims with being off-topic, thus being able to infuriate those folk.
So, what is the 'real' topic here?
The real topic is framed by Rahvin and Rahvin alone. We can but comment and ask for clarification in a polite and respectful manner. Now lets allow the man to further refine his topic, shall we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 12:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 11-08-2010 7:01 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 32 (590549)
11-08-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rahvin
11-08-2010 5:51 PM


Re: A Cause is a Cause Beacuse
Jon writes:
Well, since you've chosen to define a 'mysterious answer' as one that is meant 'to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity', then I guess it would be true that, given this definition, all 'mysterious answers' will stop curiosity. But now, can you provide some examples of answers that would fit this definition of 'mysterious'?
I gave several. Perhaps you didn't read?
Of course you didn't. None of the examples you gave were instances where an answer stopped curiositywhatever the hell that even means. I even pointed this out with each example and gave further examples of curiosity sparked by the answers.
In my OP, I even gave an example of a mysterious answer that was held as the then-currently accepted scientific answer for the cause of fire.
Yup; you sure did. Never showed how in any way 'phlogiston did it' was a curiosity-stopper, though. In fact, you noted many things about which to be further curious given the answer 'phlogiston'.
Imagine my car was broken yesterday, and today it's been repaired.
I know that the sequence of events was:
1) car broken
2) something happened
3) car working
I ask what happened to restore my car to working order. The response I get is "Fred fixed it."
What do I know now?
1) car broken
2) something happened involving Fred
3) car fixed
You know Fred grabbed some wrenches and dug around under the hood of the car, as opposed to chanting spells on it, praying for it, pissing on it while drunkenly singing along to bad country music, etc. So, I would say the answer 'Fred fixed it' provides a lot of information, and as you yourself point out, does in no way stop curiosity on the matter of exactly what Fred did.
This is a problem if I think this means I somehow understand how to fix cars when they are broken.
Then how is this a problem with the answer? Sounds more indicative of personal intellectual laziness than anything.
Of course I can predict something with that answer. I can predict that, if I look up and down aisle 10, I will find lasagna.
You can predict the answer just given to the question? That's a low criterion of usefulness in terms of a prediction, but I'll run with it:
"Thor's hammer causes thunder."
I can predict that if I find Thor's hammer, I will be able to make some thunder with it. Yup, seems good to me. Let's go find it.
Perhaps you're surprised to see me writing it, but scientists can fall for the same intellectual traps that non-scientists can.
Indeed. All scientists are likely wrong.
If you ask me what makes a computer work, and I answe "magic," do you have any idea how a computer works?
A vague idea, yes, which prompts for a lot of curiosity.
If you asked me what makes cars go, and I answered "phlogiston," would you be able to make a car?
No, but you cannot expect any answer that can be given between the time one wakes up and the time one goes to bed to convey all the information required to build a car. That an answer must instill in the recipient all the knowledge needed to replicate the event to be a 'real' answer is just a nonsense criterion that makes it pretty much impossible for anything other than cooking recipes to qualify as 'real' answers. Your expectations for what counts as an answer are ridiculous and unrealistic.
Do you think about things before you post them?
Sure do. You've still lots of points to address, though, Rahvin:
Because obviously, Jon, answers that do not have those features do not actually answer questions.
What does it mean to actually answer a question?
What is required of an answer for it to actually answer a question, and why are these things required?
Jon writes:
But now, can you provide some examples of answers that would fit this definition of 'mysterious'?
I gave several.
How are the examples you gave curiosity-stoppers?
How are the instances you gave of stopped curiosity in anyway a fault of the answer and not merely an indication of the intellectual laziness of the recipient?
Of course real answers stop curiosity. The problem of mysterious answers is that they stop curiosity when they should not, because the question has not been answered.
How does any answer in and of itself stop curiosity?
Why is stopping curiosity a good thing?
Look forward to seeing these things addressed.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 11-08-2010 5:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024