Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,660 Year: 1,917/9,624 Month: 1,350/567 Week: 296/601 Day: 39/32 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
jar
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 616 of 693 (711800)
11-22-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Straggler
11-22-2013 11:47 AM


Re: Predictions
No, once again you simply misrepresent what I have said.
I said I see no test of the supernatural in your example.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 12:06 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 617 of 693 (711801)
11-22-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by New Cat's Eye
11-22-2013 11:20 AM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
CS writes:
I made a general reply that science can witness anything, but its explanations are limited to natural ones.
I think that is an interesting point.
I think it depends on whether one sees science as a naturalistic philosophy (methodological naturalism) or a method (the hypothetico-deductive method).
I guess my point is that it is in principle possible to acquire objective empirical evidence of the supernatural using the hypothetico-deductive method. That's what I have described doing. That's why I disagree with those who confidently assert that supernatural explanations can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced. They can. They just aren't.
When I say that if there were objective empirical evidence of the supernatural then I would seriously question, and even potentially change, my atheistic stance - I mean it. It isn't just some bullshit debating stance because in practise there is no evidence I would ever accept (a la jar).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by ringo, posted 11-22-2013 12:12 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 621 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 1:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 618 of 693 (711802)
11-22-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by jar
11-22-2013 11:56 AM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:
As a result of prayer it has been revealed that those closest to GOD will be imbued with incredible healing powers.
The hypothesis is that those who are more devout will receive healing powers from GOD.
The prediction is that those who devote themselves to GOD will exhibit these healing powers.
Lo and behold priests all around the world are suddenly and verifiably able to heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and so on and so forth. The Pope is verifiably able to resurrect the dead.
But - unconvinced - we do some further testing of this hypothesis:
We get a group of those who are about to set out dedicating their life to prayer, biblical study and generally praising GOD.
We get another group who think it's all a load of bunk and who refuse to have anything to do with GOD whatever these mysterious healing powers may suggest.
We get a control group who have no idea what they are being tested for.
Over time the first group are objectively verified as exhibiting incredible healing powers whilst the other two groups show no such signs.
The above would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question obtained by the application of the hypothetico-deductive method.
jar writes:
I see no test of the supernatural in your example.
The hypothesis in question has been tested.
Because it is hypotheses that we test. Not "the natural" or the "supernatural".
You relentlessly declaring that we must test "the supernatural" is no different to Einsten being asked to test "the natural" when hypothesising that gravity is the result of spacetime curvature.
Your ignorance of the hypothetico-deductive method continues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by jar, posted 11-22-2013 11:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by jar, posted 11-22-2013 12:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 644 by Phat, posted 11-24-2013 11:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 619 of 693 (711803)
11-22-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by Straggler
11-22-2013 11:57 AM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
Straggler writes:
That's why I disagree with those who confidently assert that supernatural explanations can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced.
I don't know if anybody is saying that. What I hear is that there may be some things that can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced and we call those things "supernatural". It's a term for what's outside the room. It's the paper that the Venn diagram is drawn on.
Straggler writes:
They can. They just aren't.
You can't know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 11:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 2:43 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 620 of 693 (711806)
11-22-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Straggler
11-22-2013 12:06 PM


Re: Predictions
Not so.
Did you say "The above would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question obtained by the application of the hypothetico-deductive method."?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2013 1:05 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 621 of 693 (711815)
11-22-2013 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by Straggler
11-22-2013 11:57 AM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
I think it depends on whether one sees science as a naturalistic philosophy (methodological naturalism) or a method (the hypothetico-deductive method).
I see the method as one part of what is referred to as "science".
I guess my point is that it is in principle possible to acquire objective empirical evidence of the supernatural using the hypothetico-deductive method.
As I said before, if it has objective empirical evidence and we can make predictions of it, then it is what we would label as natural. There's nothing super about it.
They can. They just aren't.
So either they don't exist, or science can't know them.
When I say that if there were objective empirical evidence of the supernatural then I would seriously question, and even potentially change, my atheistic stance - I mean it.
That's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist. I've had experiences that made me think that there's other stuff going on here that falls outside of what science knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 11:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2013 1:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 622 of 693 (711817)
11-22-2013 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 619 by ringo
11-22-2013 12:12 PM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
Straggelr writes:
That's why I disagree with those who confidently assert that supernatural explanations can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced.
Ringo writes:
I don't know if anybody is saying that.
Ask jar how a supernatural hypothesis can be evdenced.
Ringo writes:
You can't know that.
Show me what I can know.
A major source of confrontation here seems to be then massive difference in what people "know". Look at CS's posts for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by ringo, posted 11-22-2013 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by ringo, posted 11-23-2013 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 623 of 693 (711819)
11-22-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Jon
11-21-2013 4:42 PM


Re: Supernatural is used in the same context as Artificial
Jon writes:
You're just equivocating again.
It is impossible to equivocate when I'm supplying the definitions and sticking to them.
It is clear to everyone else what is meant by "natural" in this discussion.
It should be clear to everyone who replies to me that I'm using the definitions that I post and say that I'm using.
How many times would you like me to admit that if we use a definition of "natural" that reduces to "occurs in the universe" then, obviously, something that is supernatural cannot occur in the universe... otherwise, it would be natural?
(That counts as one more... I think I'm up to 8 times now...)
Of course if we don't adjust that definition, then there's nothing to talk about. I suppose we can all say "yay for tautologies!"
If, however, we do want to show a distinction that can be made between supernatural and natural... then the definition I've provided do exactly that.
Decide what you're looking for, then attempt to make comments within the right context. It's less confusing for everyone.
"Supernatural" is not used in the same context as "artificial".
It most certainly is, when I clearly lay out that this is exactly what I'm doing and why...
To claim otherwise is simply immature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Jon, posted 11-21-2013 4:42 PM Jon has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 624 of 693 (711820)
11-22-2013 3:57 PM


Definitions
It seems to me that we're talking about questions like the following:
Can the supernatural be tested?
Is it possible to know if the supernatural exists?
Can science study the supernatural?
All of these questions have one thing in common. They imply (possibly only hypothetically) that the supernatural is something that has the possibility to occur in the universe.
There is a definition of "natural" that can be reduced to "occurs in the universe."
When using this definition, the obvious answer to all the above supernatural questions is "No" simply by definition. No thought required.
Anyone attempting to discuss these supernatural questions in any way and insisting on using this "occurs in the universe" definition of "natural" in a natural vs. supernatural sense is being ignorant at best and trolling at worst.
The fact that the very nature of these questions imply that the supernatural may be something that occurs should be the hint (to the honest and reasonable participant) that there must be some context of "natural" being used that simply does not rule out any discussion of the supernatural by definition. Obviously, if such a definition of "natural" was used... then there's no point in even asking the questions in the first place.
The only definition of the world "natural" that makes sense when asking these sorts of questions is the one I've provided:
  • Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention (or intervention from any other "intelligent being). Example: A flower grown from the ground.
If you do not agree... why do you possibly think any definition of natural reducing to "occurs in the universe" should be used in the discussion other than the fact that it rules out the supernatural simply by definition? What other information does this definition bring to the discussion? Why would think that ruling something out "by definition" should be considered an intelligent response in this case?
The answer of "it's popular" or "it's normal" doesn't count. That just means you're being ignorant.
The use of the word "natural" in the sense that it's non-man-made is just as popular and normal. Probably even more so.

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 4:15 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 627 by Jon, posted 11-22-2013 5:04 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 625 of 693 (711822)
11-22-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 624 by Stile
11-22-2013 3:57 PM


Re: Definitions
If someone started a thread asking if water could be dry, then I would stick to saying that it is a stupid question rather than trying to redefine the word "dry" so that the question could be explored. But that's just me.
If someone like you comes along and provides their definitions, then sure, I'll talk to you about it. But in the back of my mind I'm still thinking, water isn't dry by definition, this is kinda silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Stile, posted 11-22-2013 3:57 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8430
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 626 of 693 (711827)
11-22-2013 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Tangle
11-22-2013 3:42 AM


Re: The Alien Done It
A miracle? Sure. But, supernatural?
.....and the difference is?
Big. The one is under the normal bell curve but waaay out there at the pointy end of the right hand tail. The other doesn't exist.
All fully witnessed and accredited by the James Randi foundation and 100 sceptics of your choosing. The miracle to be performed once a week until you can't think of anything else to test.
Great! When can we get started?
The point is that these hypotheticals never exist so there is no point in addressing them.
Edited by AZPaul3, : corrections

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2013 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2013 6:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 627 of 693 (711828)
11-22-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 624 by Stile
11-22-2013 3:57 PM


Re: Definitions
There is a definition of "natural" that can be reduced to "occurs in the universe."
And, of course, that is the only definition applicable when discussing the philosophy of science.
quote:
Wikipedia on Nature:
The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth". Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις ), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage was confirmed during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.
quote:
Wikipedia on Science:
The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.
There is only one sense for the word "nature" in a discussion of science, and that is the sense that everyone in this thread (aside from yourself) has been using.
Your introduction of the lay sense of the term is an equivocation:
Honest person: Science can only study the natural world (= the entirety of the physical, empirical world)
Stile: No; science can also study things that are not natural (= things not affected or effected by humans).
The use of the word "natural" in the sense that it's non-man-made is just as popular and normal. Probably even more so.
Yet entirely misses the mark in a discussion on the philosophy of science.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Stile, posted 11-22-2013 3:57 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by Stile, posted 11-25-2013 9:20 AM Jon has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9460
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 628 of 693 (711839)
11-22-2013 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by AZPaul3
11-22-2013 4:51 PM


Re: The Alien Done It
AZPaull3 writes:
Big. The one is under the normal bell curve but waaay out there at the pointy end of the right hand tail. The other doesn't exist.
If either actually existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nevertheless, since when was a miracle not supernatural?
The point is that these hypotheticals never exist so there is no point in addressing them.
As the supernatural doesn't exist, the ONLY way they can be discussed is hypothetically.
I find the reluctance to accept - by both believers and skeptics - an obvious supernatural/miraculous event, strange, to say the least.
What are both sides of the argument frightened of here?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 4:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 7:39 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 630 by Jon, posted 11-22-2013 10:22 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 634 by ringo, posted 11-23-2013 10:47 AM Tangle has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8430
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 629 of 693 (711841)
11-22-2013 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Tangle
11-22-2013 6:46 PM


Re: The Alien Done It
Nevertheless, since when was a miracle not supernatural?
Since semantics made supernatural a null subset of miracle.
On a slick icy road I skid. The variable uncertainty of physics came together at that precise moment in such a fashion I slid right around, like 270o, the bridge abutment with not even a scratch on my driver's side door (from where I had watched in fascinated slow motion).
Given that a fraction of a second or a fraction of a millimeter difference in any of the thousands of data points involved (all possibilities under the curve) would have meant a banged up car or a dead yours truly, that is miracle enough for me.
I find the reluctance to accept - by both believers and skeptics - an obvious supernatural/miraculous event, strange, to say the least.
I don't, since there hasn't been one.
What are both sides of the argument frightened of here?
I cannot speak for the believer, nor for any skeptic but myself, but the big problem is the penchant for humans to jump to a "supernatural" conclusion in the face of the unknown and the woo-woo anti-science, illogical, irrational tripe that comes with it. If the word could be whipped back into the cage of its classical meaning, and Stile is trying hard, that would be different. But he hasn't and it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2013 6:46 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 630 of 693 (711854)
11-22-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Tangle
11-22-2013 6:46 PM


Re: The Alien Done It
What are both sides of the argument frightened of here?
No one is afraid of anything. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish the "supernatural" from the "natural" when "supernatural" means something that goes against our current understanding of the way the universe works; and when "supernatural" means wholly and entirely outside of nature and the empirical universe it is untestable by science.
It's just that simple.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2013 6:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Tangle, posted 11-23-2013 4:44 AM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024