|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
This is a bit off-topic for a thread strictly on Scientific "Knowledge". But we both know it is relevant in the wider context so I will diverge slightly.
X writes: can you cite a link where science has objectively refuted Lunar Deities? Picking one of the Lunar deities I linked to pretty much at random.....
The Aztec Moon Goddess Coyolxauhqui wiki writes: The pregnancy of Coatlicue, the maternal Earth deity, made her other children embarrassed, including her oldest daughter, Coyolxauhqui. As she swept the temple, a few hummingbird feathers fell into her bosom. Coatlicue’s child, Huitzilopochtli, sprang from her womb in full war armor and killed Coyolxauhqui, along with their 400 brothers and sisters. He cut off her limbs, then tossed her head into the sky where it became the moon, so that his mother would be comforted in seeing her daughter in the sky every night. Having had men walk on the moon, having scientifically studied the moon's chemical composition are you really going to claim that our scientific knowledge fails to refute the idea that the moon is the disembodied head of the goddess Coyolxauhqui?
Really....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The symbols are irrelevant. 0+1=1 is a mathematical truth that we would expect any sufficiently advanced alien civilisation to know regardless of what symbols they use to express it.
Likewise the relationship: Forget the symbols used. They are just conventions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
Straggler writes: 2) The positive evidence favouring human imagination as the only known source of supernatural concepts leads me to tentatively conclude that all such concepts are products of human imagination. LOL. Come on Stragg ...that is a little different than:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination". This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits. It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist". If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence. Are you sure you and bluegenes are on the same page?
Straggler writes: It came to be as a result of the plethora of supernatural concepts which have been, and can be, shown to be false. Ok, fine. Of course there are SN concepts which can and have been shown to be false. No problemo.
the reason we don't sacrifice people to the Aztec Sun god Tonatiuh etc. etc. is because we have scientifically studied the Sun and now know that these concepts (along with many many many many more such concepts) are not real entities. They are products of human imagination. Hmmmm, for me I accept that is true. This is where it gets murky for me. Im on my own island at times. Right between you and RAZD It's not about me tho, it's for the good of the God(s). And in that respect IMHO, RAZD has been very consistant whereas you say he's in-consistant. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Chuck writes: that is a little different than: Is it? Have you actually read what bluegenes has said? Do you know that any scientific theory pertaining to ALL of anything is necessarily inductive? Do you understand he role of inductive reasoning in science? Do you understand that ALL scientific theories are tentative? Are you making a distinction between supernatural beings and supernatural concepts? If so on what basis (can you give examples of each)? If you think bluegenes, me, Mod or anyone else on the "dark side" of the debate is making proclamations of certainty rather than expressing inductively derived tentative conclusions then you have utterly misunderstood the entire argument.
Chuck writes: Ok, fine. Of course there are SN concepts which can and have been shown to be false. No problemo. Good. Are there ANY which have been shown to be real to the same extent?
Chuck writes: It's not about me tho, it's for the good of the God(s). And in that respect IMHO, RAZD has been very consistant whereas you say he's in-consistant. RAZD is disturbingly consistent in his absolute agnosticism to anything untestable. Did you actually read message Message 74 in this thread where I listed the vast array of things to which RAZ has proclaimed himself utterly unable to describe himself as even tentatively atheistic? Is it really rational to be 5 on the scale you refer to with respect to Immaterial Toilet Goblins the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Last Thursdayism or the tooth fairy? Where RAZ is inconsistent is in his denial of one conclusion in the face of another. For example he advocates that the scientific evidence favouring the Earth as billions of years old is indicative of "probable reality" whilst also asserting that any rejection of Last Thursdayism as improbable is pseudoskeptical because it hasn't been tested. How can the Earth be probably bilions of years old without being improbably a few days old? It is inconsistent nonsense and RAZ's position is riddled with such contradictions - Indeed one can be defined for any scientific conclusion that RAZ accepts as indicative of "probable reality".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
xongsmith writes: Theories are based on our experiences of reality. While this may have been a good line of attack, Zen Deist did not originally have to launch into counter claims at all! He was just criticizing the way this theory arrived. When a theory is proposed, the very 1st thing that must be shown is the theory, how it came to be.Bluegenes theory matches my experience of reality. It it only RAZD (and yourself?) that thinks that humans are unable to create supernatural beings using their imagination. xongsmith writes: Luckily, Bluegenes theory is not arbitrary: it is based on reality. Theories have to be well-formed. They cannot be arbitrary wild claims or even mild claims.Are you not aware of imagined supernatural beings? Or are you aware of supernatural beings where human imagination is not the source? xongsmith writes: You must actually mean 'sufficiently convincing to xongsmith and RAZD', because even ToE does not have 'sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence' for everyone. If a challenger's 1st objection is in the formulation of the theory, then the BURDEN of "proof" is on the person proposing the theory. To make it clearer, strike the dubious word "proof" for "providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence".Setting unobtainable standards seems a bit pointless. xongsmith writes: So, Lord Voldemort being fictional is hearsay? Even RAZD agrees that he is made up by human imagination. I wonder why you think different? He has INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation. Meh. He has the relatively primitive tools of psychology, which basically detects that when brain patterns show the tendency to make things up, they will make things up. DUH. He has yet to describe the scientific equipment used to be able to detect a Supernatural Being OR by not detecting it, flick some kind of sensor off (or on, depending on the equipment's configuration) indicate that there was no Supernatural Being there.When people theorise about the age of the earth, they are not expected to test for unevidenced alternatives (e.g. Omphalism). When people theorise about evolution, they are not expected to test for unevidenced alternatives (e.g. an intervening god). Obviously, you wish to make an exception with Bluegenes theory. xongsmith writes: And now we are back to your "I don't care what you say - you haven't convinced me!" Okay - I admit it - I'm pissed off that you others on our bluegenes team cannot understand this. The person proposing the theory is the first person who has the onus of demonstrating how the theory came about. If anyone else challenges this - the challenger is not under the burden of providing providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence - the theory has to be defended with providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence by the proposer.It has been explained how the theory was formed. We are not required to convince everyone that disagrees. I can find many, many people who are not convinced by the evidence for evolution.That does not make it false. To summarise: most of your post is an Argument from Personal Incredulity: you aren't convinced by the theory.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Given that we are (once again) having to clarify the difference between tentative knowledge and absolute certainty I thought it would be worth posting Dawkins comments on his own scale:
Dawkins writes: I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. The 1 and 7 positions on the much cited Dawkins scale are reserved for things which can be axiomatically proved (e.g. mathematical truths) and expressions of faith based certainty such as those expressed by Chuck and other theists on this site. None of those here RAZ relentlessly accuses of pseudoskepticism hold such a position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Hi, xongsmith. I've hesitated to engage this debate, since bluegenes and the Gang of Four, as you call them, have done so well.
But what the hell.
xongsmith writes: If a challenger's 1st objection is in the formulation of the theory, then the BURDEN of "proof" is on the person proposing the theory. To make it clearer, strike the dubious word "proof" for "providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence". Every scientific investigation works with the implicit hypothesis that natural causes are both necessary and sufficient to explain observed phenomena. Since promoters of the supernatural hypothesis originally claimed that ALL phenomena are due to supernatural causes, every investigation that discovered necessary and sufficient natural causes has confounded the supernatural hypothesis--every investigation removed a brick from the supernatural edifice and added it to the inductive foundation of scientific naturalism. When a creationist dismisses the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution, we can and do cite specific findings. Similarly, supporters of bluegene's theory have cited specific findings that contradict the supernatural hypothesis' causal claims and confirm bluegene's theory. More important, though, since these findings are invariably dismissed, is a reference to the innumerable inductive findings in many fields that confirm the theory of evolution. In this context, we simply refer the creationist to the vast body of scientific knowledge. In effect, proponents of the theory of evolution and the proponents of bluegene's theory hand their critics an index to all of science. The notion that each datum must be recited in order to refute an unevidenced objection is absurd. So, as to the formulation of bluegene's theory: many thousands of times, if not millions of times, scientists' working hypotheses that we will find necessary and sufficient natural causes for each observed phenomena have been confirmed. Further, every supernatural hypothesis to the contrary, and every prediction made by the supernatural hypothesis, has been confounded. Bluegene's step from a large body of confirmed hypotheses to a strong theory is rigorously justified. If you want to see the mass of evidence that supports the formulation of bluegene's theory, I'll open the library door for you.
bluegenes has held up fairly well, but he has relied on the Gang of Four to do his homework & cheerleading quite a bit. Good for them - I would do no less. What he has not done is provided sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence for his theory. He has INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation. Meh. He has the relatively primitive tools of psychology, which basically detects that when brain patterns show the tendency to make things up, they will make things up. DUH. As noted above, every scientific finding that supports the necessity and sufficiency of natural causation and confounds the supernatural hypothesis provides evidence for bluegene's theory. I believe he has referenced this evidence. Jeering at fragments of it while ignoring the totality of it will not invalidate the theory.
He has yet to describe the scientific equipment used to be able to detect a Supernatural Being OR by not detecting it, flick some kind of sensor off (or on, depending on the equipment's configuration) indicate that there was no Supernatural Being there Well, this is the last refuge, isn't it? The supernaturalist must abandon all claims to supernatural effects in the natural world and instead rely on the bare assertion that their woo-woo can be neither detected nor disproven. If you want a God-O-Meter, again, I refer you to the full repository of science. Every bit of instrumentation used to confirm the specifics of natural causation has also functioned as a God-O-Meter, and the needle has not moved."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Hello Straggler,
Strag writes: I made no claims of knowledge whatsoever. When doing research science often attaches confidence values to the variables. It is of course a matter of how much confidence one places on the supposed knowledge eh? In other words I have more confidence your pen will drop at the speed of 9.8m/s square. But little confidence you have a soul. I do not KNOW you do not have a soul no more than I know your pen wont quantum tunnel though your desk.
Do you really claim no more "knowledge" regarding one than the other? Really? Strag writes: On the basis that historically the physical laws agree with that which has been observed. However the past may not actually exist. Time may be ever accumulating fractions of the now, and we only associate a past because temporally we make those assumptions.
On what basis do you have "confidence" that the physical laws "matter seems to obey" will continue into the future..Strag writes: I am a creature that derives my existence from my sensory perception. If I exist in a universe that is manifested by a computer simulation then how is that different than my existence in this natural universe? If two things are identical in every aspect then there is no difference.
.. or that your memory of these laws is even based on reality rather than false memories of the type described by the 1 second universe proposition described in the OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
[qs=Numbers]
Numbers writes: I made no claims of knowledge whatsoever. You seem to be applying a meaning of the word "know" that entails certainty. Given that all science is tentative this would make the term "scientific knowledge" an oxymoron. When I say that I "know" my soon-to-be dropped-pen will fall in manner consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics I am not invoking certainty. I am invoking scientific "knowledge" which is implicitly and innately tentative to some degree. I don't really see that we are disagreeing on anything much but terminology here.
Numbers writes: It is of course a matter of how much confidence one places on the supposed knowledge eh? You talk about confidence - But confidence of what? That our "knowledge" is an accurate reflection of reality? When in science we talk about having confidence in a theory what exactly do you think is being said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
This. I don't really see that we are disagreeing on anything much but terminology here.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Good post.
I have said something similar previously (so I am going to use a reply to your post to plug my own )
Straggler writes: "Somethingsupernaturaldidit" is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is in fact the very opposite. As evidenced by human history and the steady march of scientific understanding at the expense of superstitious mysticism. How much more evidence do you need? Message 436
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Straggler writes: I have said something similar previously (so I am going to use a reply to your post to plug my own ) That's only fair--reading your posts (and the rest of the Gang's ) on the subject crystallized my thoughts."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith (brother X?)
xongsmith writes: Panda writes:
To quote Marcello Truzzi: quote: We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim. While this may have been a good line of attack, Zen Deist did not originally have to launch into counter claims at all! He was just criticizing the way this theory arrived. When a theory is proposed, the very 1st thing that must be shown is the theory, how it came to be. Theories have to be well-formed. They cannot be arbitrary wild claims or even mild claims. No. It is the BURDEN of the the person proposing the theory to provide good reason for it. If, after this first step has been reached - something that, seemingly, only the Gang of Four (bluegenes, Straggler, Modulous, Panda) have accepted blindly without the faintest breath of skepticism or agnosticism - if this step has been reached by a consensus of all stakeholders and there are subsequent troubles, then we can proceed along to your well-stated line of attack.
If a challenger's 1st objection is in the formulation of the theory, then the BURDEN of "proof" is on the person proposing the theory. To make it clearer, strike the dubious word "proof" for "providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence". bluegenes has held up fairly well, but he has relied on the Gang of Four to do his homework & cheerleading quite a bit. Good for them - I would do no less. What he has not done is provided sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence for his theory. He has INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation. Meh. He has the relatively primitive tools of psychology, which basically detects that when brain patterns show the tendency to make things up, they will make things up. DUH. He has yet to describe the scientific equipment used to be able to detect a Supernatural Being OR by not detecting it, flick some kind of sensor off (or on, depending on the equipment's configuration) indicate that there was no Supernatural Being there. I am still completely dumbfounded that nearly everyone on bluegenes' side seems to think that those who disagree with him must provide their side of the evidence FIRST - when all that was happening here was the opening door troubles. I am even more astonished that anyone has concluded Zen Deist has made any theoretical assertions that bluegenes theory or claim is factually wrong! I am equally perplexed at this, but there is - even more to the point - the REST of what Truzzi said: Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia
quote: So when I ask for the evidence and substantiation of the claim of having a theory and "plenty of evidence" to support it -- I am saying that the claim is NOT proven\demonstrated\supported sufficiently, and I am NOT saying that (or even addressing whether) it is false. We also see from Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia
quote: eg - the alternate hypothesis for the same "INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation" is just brushed away, the comments about possible alternative means for getting the concepts (religious experience, etc) are just brushed away, rather than examined. AND, to be clear, I do not need to provide substantiation for a claim that can be found copiously in literature, I just need to point out that it exists and that it has not been addressed in the development of the hypothesis ... and I have done that. It's really that simple, and has been that simple from the beginning: show me the objective evidence, show me how it is a theory based on objective evidence, and not just a conjectural hypothesis based on confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Show me that documented possible alternatives do not apply, rather than just assume it. That is how you do science rather than pseudoscience. If you can't do it then you do not have a scientific hypothesis. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty Edited by Admin, : Make author of quote more clear.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
I am not claiming that religious documents are not a source of knowledge about supernatural beings. I am claiming that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Without any testing of any of the religious documents to see if they are due to an alternative source. Isn't that just ASSUMING that you "know with certainty" because you cherry pick your evidence according to confirmation bias?
RAZD writes: If you think it is evidence then stop ignoring it. Isn't it rather unscientific to just ignore vast potential resources that may already include falsification of the hypothesis? Or is it just assumed to be imagination?Falsify Bluegenes hypothesis. To quote Marcello Truzzi:
quote: We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim. See Message 103 for my answer to this falsehood/misrepresentation/etc So why did you clip the quote from the wiki article on Truzzi, while ignoring the actual quote that from Truzzi that actually applies, in favor of implying\saying something that does NOT apply? Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia
quote: bluegenes has failed to substantiate that he has "plenty of" objective evidence or that he even has a (scientific) theory. We also see from Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia
quote: Name a source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination. Again, I refer you to religious documents for possible sources of that information -- perhaps you really should look into it, rather than assume that you can claim to know all the possible sources? Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Marcello Truzzi also writes
If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances.
Note that this criterion is met by the argument that thunder and lightning are caused naturally, rather than by Thor. Truzzi also concedes that plausibilty arguments may be adequate in some cases:
Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too.
And he has words for opponents of skepticism that have some relevance:
Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim.
In my view, defending a position by putting forward unfalsifiable and unevidenced ad hoc speculations as propositions to be taken seriously would fall into much the same category. Certainly it could be fairly described as "clinging to any slim loose end". Finally, Truzzi denies a need for absolute disproof:
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.
The latter sections of the Wikipedia entry, on Describing believers in pseudoscience and Criticizing scientific skepticism might also be profitably read by those interested in this debate. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024