tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1747378600366071303..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Testing the supernaturalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18128530298099386442014-03-12T15:53:29.723-04:002014-03-12T15:53:29.723-04:00Great article, thank you for this post! It makes m...Great article, thank you for this post! It makes me think, and what could be better? I found it because I was searching for something on the tension between science and the supernatural. I get from your article that you say science assumes continuity in nature, that miracles would have to be a breech of such continuity and that therefore science is not a tool capable of making sense of miracles. I hope I got this right, and I would agree with this notion. What bugs me about supernatural phenomena or entities etc. is that the term already makes no sense. Supernatural is above nature, outside of the universe we live in, and therefore by definition out of our intellectual grasp, isn't it? So every time we talk about something supernatural like a miracle or a god, we are talking about something we cannot talk about in any meaningful way, right? So then why talk at all about it, I suspect Wittgenstein would ask. Proponents of the supernatural need to come up with an operational terminology first and a testable hypothesis later, and I suspect that is impossible for them to do?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07180958119666107847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26074216025199926742013-09-30T20:21:30.686-04:002013-09-30T20:21:30.686-04:00I am going to speak in facts:
I am a strong Christ...I am going to speak in facts:<br />I am a strong Christian<br />what atheists believe is much more logical than what Christians believe.<br />Its just that what Christians believe happens to be true.<br />How am I sure?<br />Because I have seen rock solid proof. I have seen a blind person healed. I have seen people in wheelchairs get up and walk. Most of all, I have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit personally. I am one hundred percent sure that Christianity Is real. Its a strange world we live in. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08706819876709297127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26681235741613598812013-08-15T09:15:31.658-04:002013-08-15T09:15:31.658-04:00"Berkeley’s idealism is conceptually possible..."Berkeley’s idealism is conceptually possible"<br />What about Ajdukiewicz's argument against idealism?JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14081481069814320759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28104807189012959212013-07-26T17:23:07.369-04:002013-07-26T17:23:07.369-04:00The supernatural isn't vague- immaterial consc...The supernatural isn't vague- immaterial conscious entity with agency. There is evidence for the immaculate conception, it's just of the anecdotal variety (not scientific). I am told the testing involves listening to your heart or something along that line. That remains fuzzy to me. Bill Raybarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04983019883413164948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60862511796643079052013-07-25T11:45:46.999-04:002013-07-25T11:45:46.999-04:00Real
Ah, by and by, to dust the cobwebs off the ...Real<br /> <br />Ah, by and by, to dust the cobwebs off the sky,<br />shadows Mr. Plato, are real too! == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80269262171114672092013-07-25T10:30:22.396-04:002013-07-25T10:30:22.396-04:00Alex,
we are clearly not going to see eye to eye ...Alex,<br /><br />we are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this one. But I am surprised that you still put it in terms of petty turf wars. I don’t care whether it is a scientist or a philosopher to say X or Y. What I care about is to acknowledge the limits of human inquiry, be it scientific or philosophical.<br /><br />> While you appear to believe that the job of science is to conduct one isolated experiment after the other, most scientists believe that the job of science is to figure out what exists, what does not exist, what happens, and what does not happen in the universe. <<br /><br />I think I have a much broader view of science than you allow. But the supernatural is supposed to be, well, outside the damn universe. Which is why science ought to be silent about it. the point is simple: there are things you can’t test, as a scientist, even in principle, so why would you invoke the name of science to reject them?<br /><br />Can scientists use logic, or is the latter reserved for philosophers? That, obviously, is a silly question. I’m sure as a scientist you deploy mathematical tools, even though you are not a mathematician. But it doesn’t follow that: a) there is no domain that pertains to math and not science; b) you can appropriate the domain of math just because it is useful to you in your research. Why would logic or philosophy be different?<br /><br />> If you ask yourself "does X exist out there?" <<br /><br />Except that the sense of “exists” here does not pertain to the physical world. It’s more akin to “do mathematical objects exist?” Would you answer the latter by deploying a telescope?<br /><br />> Perhaps you are too hung up about the few famous scientists who have publicly expressed their misguided disdain for philosophy to realize that that stance is unrepresentative of most scientists. <<br /><br />Perhaps, but since they are *prominent* they are also influential, as demonstrated by press coverage of what they say.<br /><br />> it appears to me that if the public is getting weary of the supposed arrogance of scientists it has little to nothing to do with obscure demarcation problems and everything with the fact that science regularly comes up with unpleasant results <<br /><br />You are partly right, but I actually think that Richard Dawkins has done a lot to damage public reputation of science with his scientistic insistence on testing the “god hypothesis.” I am certainly not claiming that the factors you mention aren’t important as well, perhaps even more so. But I find myself on the side of scientists on global warming and evolution, so there would be little point in discussing them further here.<br /><br />> And it certainly won't make a lot of difference if you, as an outspoken atheist philosopher, simply take the scientist's place to tell the public the exact same unwelcome news that they are unlikely to see their dead mother again in the afterlife <<br /><br />Well, at least we can share the heat... ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71729115234800073142013-07-24T20:37:31.657-04:002013-07-24T20:37:31.657-04:00It may be that I do not understand the answer or t...It may be that I do not understand the answer or that we are not even clear on where we disagree. The title of this post is "testing the supernatural". Of course, if we all agree immediately that the category supernatural is an empty set then science cannot test it. No problem with that as such. But saying that we cannot test something experimentally is not the same as agreeing that a scientist who uses their scientific credentials to reject a claim about something magical is arrogant, scientistic and overstepping epistemic bounds.<br /><br />While you appear to believe that the job of science is to conduct one isolated experiment after the other, most scientists believe that the job of science is to figure out what exists, what does not exist, what happens, and what does not happen in the universe.<br /><br />And really the latter is self-evident. If you ask yourself "does X exist out there?", who're you gonna call? Not the Ghost Busters. Not a mathematician. Not a logician. Not a philosopher. Not a magician (I'd hope). No, you ask a scientist. (In your attempt to box science into the smallest possible container, you may prefer to call some of the scientists one would consult about the existence of X "natural historians" but they still aren't any of the professions I listed before scientist.) And "god", "souls" and "magic" are possible values for that X.<br /><br />Again I will grant immediately that you do not <i>need</i> to call a scientist to collect empirical data on X if you can immediately see that X is an incoherent or self-contradictory idea; in that case, a philosopher will suffice. But if you say that a scientist may not join the discussion to say that X most probably does not exist because there is no empirical evidence for X either, or simply "je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse", then it is not the scientist who has started a petty turf war, it is you.<br /><br />Perhaps you are too hung up about the few famous scientists who have publicly expressed their misguided disdain for philosophy to realize that that stance is unrepresentative of most scientists. Although the sentiment could grow if they are constantly told how unqualified they are to talk about the empirically unevidenced X because they did not get degrees in philosophy.<br /><br />As for the public perception of science, maybe I am moving in the wrong circles and reading the wrong sources, but it appears to me that if the public is getting weary of the supposed arrogance of scientists it has little to nothing to do with obscure demarcation problems and everything with the fact that science regularly comes up with unpleasant results: We are changing the climate. We are overusing resources. There is a lot of evidence for evolution. The previous one is simultaneously evidence against a benevolent god and a creator god. There is no evidence for immortal souls.<br /><br />I have my doubts that telling scientists to shut up about the last two items is going to make any difference to a public that does not want to hear it needs to reduce its fuel consumption or that homeopathy doesn't work, for example. And it certainly won't make a lot of difference if you, as an outspoken atheist philosopher, simply take the scientist's place to tell the public the exact same unwelcome news that they are unlikely to see their dead mother again in the afterlife, merely using different arguments.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47107868296779406582013-07-24T17:26:24.626-04:002013-07-24T17:26:24.626-04:00Massimo,
"That says *nothing* about mysticis...Massimo,<br /><br />"That says *nothing* about mysticism, supernaturalism and the like"<br /><br />Indeed, perhaps the only rational discipline able to digress about mysticism and supernaturalism is the theory of knowledge while addressing the problem of self delusion ;)<br /><br />Finally, I believe we are agreeing (somewhat mysteriously, I have to admit :)) in the overall aspects of this matter. And two observations:<br /><br />Investigating phenomena previously claimed as mystical or supernatural:<br /><br />First, points to the possibility that - not certainly all, but - a portion of the events claimed by mysticism and supernaturalism as natural laws breakers in fact are not.<br /><br />And second, that summarily dismissing every mystical or supernatural claims as nonsensical may not be the best strategy in discovering facts that science possibly hasn't yet the means to test or even detect.Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2342776624116980652013-07-24T14:54:43.794-04:002013-07-24T14:54:43.794-04:00Alex,
> Is that an accurate description of the...Alex,<br /><br />> Is that an accurate description of the situation? If not, what is the difference to the Eucharist vs philosopher's stone example above? <<br /><br />Chris has actually already addressed your latest rounds, but it seems to me you are hung up on the word “supernatural.” You seem to think that what I’m saying is that all one has to do to stop scientific inquiry is to *declare* something to be supernatural. Not at all. I’m talking about the concepts used to describe the alleged phenomena. That’s why I said that the difference between supernatural / mystical and paranormal may be one of degrees. If the unicorn of your example is assumed to be a missing link in the evolution of Equiids, then your science-based arguments are perfectly valid. But if it is thought of as a magical animal with no connection to biological evolution on earth then your cladistic retort is useless.<br /><br />> Okay, but why has a scientist to hide behind a philosopher when something incoherent comes up, and is considered arrogant and scientistic if they say that it is, indeed, incoherent? <<br /><br />C’mon man, this isn’t a petty turf issue. I think of it as a question both of epistemic warrant and of not projecting the very same arrogant “science does it all” attitude that the public seems to be increasingly weary of, and that in my opinion does real damage to the credibility of scientific experts when they engage in public discourse.<br /><br />Lawson,<br /><br />> The point of Vedanta is that the mysticism and supernaturalism vs physicalism are false categories <<br /><br />Maybe they are (I don’t think so), but that assertion is not empirically testable, it has nothing to do with science, because science works only within a naturalistic framework.<br /><br />Waldemar,<br /><br />> any experimental data make sense just inside a set of propositions - the theory - that aims to describe what is instanced by a given experiment. <<br /><br />No objection there, it’s a standard tenet in philosophy of science, these days.<br /><br />> So, either the meditation researchers have a theoretical background in order to interpret what those brain waves - or no matter what - possibly mean, or in fact nothing can be taken from the experiment <<br /><br />They do: the naturalistic framework of modern neuroscience. Which leaves the question of whether there really is a mystical realm unaddressed, no matter what their brain scans say.<br /><br />> Aren't brain scans of several gurus in meditation, for instance, meaningful in a way that they can show that such and such areas in their brain perform similar tasks and so distinguish their brain activity from a scientist's or a virtuoso musician's doing their jobs? <<br /><br />So? That says *nothing* about mysticism, supernaturalism and the like, as you acknowledge. What you wrote after that is not clear to me, unfortunately.<br /><br />> It seems to me that any question science can’t answer doesn’t have an answer, only opinions. <<br /><br />The Pythagorean is true. NOT an opinion, and yet not coming from science either.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90484884008790576142013-07-24T11:20:17.638-04:002013-07-24T11:20:17.638-04:00It seems to me that any question science can’t ans...It seems to me that any question science can’t answer doesn’t have an answer, only opinions.semidemiurgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00936835034592200336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84905446232211521572013-07-24T11:07:59.902-04:002013-07-24T11:07:59.902-04:00Baron and Lawson, I understand that so: gurus clai...Baron and Lawson, I understand that so: gurus claim they experience TM, which they define in a certain way. Neurology or physiology can say, after due experiments, something like: the defined state has such neural or physiological characteristics; and even go further by comparing it with, for instance, what happens to a playing musician, an actor at stage etc and perhaps a lot more, such as correlation with diseases, production and so on. I suppose this is already done.<br /><br />But neurologists and physiologists have nothing to say about mysticism or spirituality, although these terms are possibly used by gurus to somewhat refer their TM experiences. The approach to defining what is mysticism or spirituality, if possible, must be a little different, <b>possibly</b> by finding some common and measurable features in different phenomena that are considered mystical or spiritual. Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33394880465993835512013-07-24T10:21:44.214-04:002013-07-24T10:21:44.214-04:00> Okay, but why has a scientist to hide behind ...> Okay, but why has a scientist to hide behind a philosopher when something incoherent comes up, and is considered arrogant and scientistic if they say that it is, indeed, incoherent?<br /><br />Not sure why you think you are hiding. To quote Massimo from the OP: <br />"Logically incoherent concepts do not need to be investigated empirically: we know that they must be false, if we wish to rely on logic at all." The flurdlwump case is different from the phylogenetic one: you will want to respond, you are not responding as a scientist, but as a (lay) philosopher. You need neither scientific training nor method here. <br /><br />I think your misunderstanding with Massimo here is one of terminology: you have a mental image of a unicorn and can map it to real world observations. That pulls it into the realm of the empirical, and calling it supernatural doesn't change that. Doesn't work with a flurdlwump. Massimo is saying the despite the words sounding recognizable, mystical/supernatural is a flurdlwump, not a unicorn - no mapping to empirical reality possible. <br /><br />Cheers<br />Chris<br /><br />chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27160678762534254382013-07-24T10:14:18.636-04:002013-07-24T10:14:18.636-04:00Philosophy 101
Copenhagen Reinterpreted
The founda...Philosophy 101<br />Copenhagen Reinterpreted<br />The foundation of science is the uncertainty of measure. Once the uncertainty is removed, truth, the absolute is all that remains. = = MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57685126241104865212013-07-24T08:49:50.021-04:002013-07-24T08:49:50.021-04:00Okay, but why has a scientist to hide behind a phi...Okay, but why has a scientist to hide behind a philosopher when something incoherent comes up, and is considered arrogant and scientistic if they say that it is, indeed, incoherent?<br /><br />Pointing out that something is incoherent is (a) not rocket science and (b) something that a scientist, again, needs to do all the time in the course of their job as a scientist.<br /><br />See my paraphyly example above: When an "evolutionary" systematist makes a claim about phylogenetic systematics that I recognize as completely nonsensical, a claim that cannot be tested experimentally because it is <i>not even wrong</i>, I <a href="http://phylobotanist.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/ranunculus-part-6-guess-fallacy.html" rel="nofollow">can</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12037/abstract" rel="nofollow">will</a> point that out. But although the controversy is about the theory of classification we are necessarily both still acting as scientists, not as philosophers of science, while we argue.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45915099979606107432013-07-24T07:08:18.346-04:002013-07-24T07:08:18.346-04:00AlexSL,
I'd like to take a shot in the hopes t...AlexSL,<br />I'd like to take a shot in the hopes that I've understood Massimo correctly:<br /><br />For your two examples, the scientist's answer would be the same (the first one), and as a zoologist he would be qualified to make that statement.<br /><br />Both examples are equivalent to the philospher's stone example, with or without the supernatural "explanation" tacked on.<br /><br />To get the equivalent of the Eucharist example, you have to modify the Unicorn:<br /><br />Flurdlwumps exist, only unfortunately they are indefinable, invisible, untouchable, and indeed completely impossible to prove or disprove by any of the tools of science. Still, I know they exist and you should believe me.<br /><br />Whether you tack on a "because they are supernatural" or not is not relevant - the zoologist qua zoologist has nothing to say about the flurdlwump. The concept is incoherent to start with, just as transubstantiation is incoherent to start with.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Chris<br />chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38680754643810724792013-07-24T05:29:36.804-04:002013-07-24T05:29:36.804-04:00Alex,
Regarding Unicorns I think one can dismiss ...Alex,<br /><br />Regarding Unicorns I think one can dismiss them as they do seem irrelevant (except as legends characters and for kriptozoologists), as long as unicorns remain immaterial they are irrelevant and will not harm no one . The supernatural per si is not accessible to science and science dismisses it, as if it didn't exist (here I mean literally "as if it didn't exist", as it is not accessible to science, and science has no way of addressing it). However some supernatural or metaphysic claims address the natural world and these claims can be tested (using science or other sources of human knowledge). For instance religions (at large) besides God, address the nature of man, the purpose and meaning of man’s existence (this is not addressable by science, but can be addressed by philosophy and humanities). Or some theists such as Platinga address evolution, other people propose ID, these issues have implications in areas that concern science and can in principle be addressed by science.<br /><br />(Sorry to intrude in your dialogue with Massimo)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7648892305664180162013-07-24T00:39:07.679-04:002013-07-24T00:39:07.679-04:00"I am aware of some of the studies you mentio..."I am aware of some of the studies you mention, and they don’t seem to pose any mystery deeper than human physiology can tackle. Nothing at all to do with evidence pro or against mysticism or supernaturalism."<br /><br />Aren't brain scans of several gurus in meditation, for instance, meaningful in a way that they can show that such and such areas in their brain perform similar tasks and so distinguish their brain activity from a scientist's or a virtuoso musician's doing their jobs? It's certain that those measurements would say nothing about mysticism and supernaturalism, but just because these are ways of understanding phenomena, ways perhaps claiming that such phenomena are beyond science scrutiny or - what seems to be the same - that they are caused by what science is unable to know. But these claims can't ensure us that science is indeed unable to measure at least a portion of those events and show that they haven't nothing that allows us to class them as mystical or supernatural - or beyond the reach of science. I even believe that the main task of philosophy and science, since the time they started to disassemble the myth, has been the demonstration that much from what was previously claimed as supernatural or mystical weren't in fact so. Finally, I think that there's a difference between the measurement of the effects of transcendental meditation (which can conclude that it corresponds to a very particular, definite behavior of the brain, useful - or not - in medicine or in whatever human activity) and, for instance, the measurement of the effects of a spirit or of God (although some headstrong science men claim they're able to do it).Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8330952804095952082013-07-23T23:05:23.200-04:002013-07-23T23:05:23.200-04:00if you are talking about measuring spirituality, d...if you are talking about measuring spirituality, do more than talking and find some actual spirituality that's measurable by a testable process. Don't start with an hypothesis that states: Since we know that these particular neurological signals are triggering spiritual impulses, our laboratory measurements of their physical components will prove that we have measured spirituality. and determined its measurable extent, etc. We will then go on to show how these signals under what we've concluded are TM states correlate with non TM states of awakened subjects.<br />Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87672161435409984202013-07-23T21:25:35.328-04:002013-07-23T21:25:35.328-04:00Massimo, my comment addressed precisely the final ...Massimo, my comment addressed precisely the final phrase of the paragraph it pointed to: "But that tells us precisely *nothing* about the nature of those experiences: real or illusory?"<br /><br />What I meant is: any experimental data make sense just inside a set of propositions - the theory - that aims to describe what is instanced by a given experiment. As an example (perhaps not the best one, although I suppose it can illustrate somehow what I mean):apples usually fall from their trees much before Newton conceive the way to describe that fact by means of a theory and just Einstein was able to notice that the phenomenon should look even more absurd (from the layman perspective), like only the idea of space deformation can be. Without a previous conception, no investigation can proceed, no fact is meaningful, science can't even 'see' a given fact.<br /><br />So, either the meditation researchers have a theoretical background in order to interpret what those brain waves - or no matter what - possibly mean, or in fact nothing can be taken from the experiment (if 'real or illusory', as you said). Perhaps the only thing an experiment (the reality) can 'cause' to a theory - a set of propositions - is its correction or its rejection (in the cases it was partially or totally wrong). But it's the theory, as a set of propositions that tries to describe reality, that must be consistent or true in itself while trying to 'emulate' - describe - the facts it refers to. Concerning the facts themselves - the ones described by or associated to a theory - they are forever 'there', forever 'true in themselves', just waiting for a good description if there's any need of it.Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2826195648576539592013-07-23T21:19:41.382-04:002013-07-23T21:19:41.382-04:00Massimo, sorry for the repeat, but you seem to be ...Massimo, sorry for the repeat, but you seem to be ignoring my original post when you say:<br /><br />>Nothing at all to do with evidence pro or against mysticism or supernaturalism.<br /><br />The point of Vedanta is that the mysticism and supernaturalism vs physicalism are false categories, just as mental/physical, conscious/unconscious, self/not-self are:<br /><br /><br />*"Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable."* -Maharishi Mahesh YogiLawson Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896901983108581710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65952638681193887312013-07-23T21:13:09.152-04:002013-07-23T21:13:09.152-04:00Baron:
"And so of course I viewed your entir...Baron:<br /><br />"And so of course I viewed your entire discourse as being essentially a religiously derived explanation. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it didn't leave much room for an alternative approach, now did it."<br /><br />What alternate approach would you take?<br /><br />The claim is that TM, alternated with activity, produces specific, long-term trait effects outside of meditation. <br /><br />How could you possibly explore this claim except by 1) finding out what the physiological correlates are during TM and 2) seeing which, if any, of the correlates become traits outside of meditation?<br /><br />How is that possibly an "Eastern approach?"Lawson Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896901983108581710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44282567099317966482013-07-23T20:18:53.244-04:002013-07-23T20:18:53.244-04:00Massimo,
Sorry but I still cannot quite believe t...Massimo,<br /><br />Sorry but I still cannot quite believe that you are actually saying what it looks like what you are saying, and that I don't simply misunderstand you. Is it correct that if somebody were to make the following claim,<br /><br /><i>Unicorns exist, only unfortunately they are invisible, untouchable, and indeed completely impossible to prove or disprove by any of the tools of science. Still, I know they exist and you should believe me.</i><br /><br />a scientist would be well within their rights to say,<br /><br /><i>Sorry, but as a zoologist specializing in land vertebrates I will tentatively conclude that unicorns don't exist until you can come up with some tangible evidence. Also, perhaps you should brush up on your critical thinking skills?</i><br /><br />But if the same person would change the claim to,<br /><br /><i>Unicorns exist, only unfortunately they are invisible, untouchable, and indeed completely impossible to prove or disprove by any of the tools of science because they are supernatural. Still, I know they exist and you should believe me.</i><br /><br />then the scientist would have to answer like this if they wanted to avoid being charged with scientism,<br /><br /><i>Sorry, but as a zoologist I cannot actually say anything about this claim or I would be overstepping the epistemic bounds of my discipline. Excuse me while I refer you to the philosopher over there who is exclusively qualified to answer you now that you have added four words to your claim, one of them, as far as I can tell, completely meaningless.</i><br /><br />Is that an accurate description of the situation? If not, what is the difference to the Eucharist vs philosopher's stone example above? If yes, ... well, I tried to think of some follow up question but I don't really know what to say in that case.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49046484411294404092013-07-23T17:21:40.223-04:002013-07-23T17:21:40.223-04:00Zal,
I mentioned miracles because that’s what the...Zal,<br /><br />I mentioned miracles because that’s what the post is about. When you say:<br /><br />> Nature may be, at the bottom, capricious, while still allowing itself to be investigated. Though individual quantum events appear to be totally undetermined, if have enough of them under the same experimental setup, a pattern emerges. <<br /><br />you may be equivocating on the term “capricious.” QM events may be random (or not, depending on your preferred interpretation of the theory), but they are most certainly not capricious. Which is why patterns “emerge.” Indeed, those patterns allow for predictions with many decimal points accuracy. Nothing of the sort happens if we bring in the supernatural.<br /><br />Lawson,<br /><br />I have not missed your point at all:<br /><br />> you can take the claim that mystical states have some definite physiological correlates and study those correlates <<br /><br />I just think that - while those studies are indeed interested - your point is irrelevant to this post, because those correlates tell us precisely nothing about whether those experiences are supernatural / mystical or not.<br /><br />> Surely atheists with high blood pressure will want to know the results of such studies and scientists in the fields of cardiology, and other fields will want to know WHY the results, whatever they turn out to be, are the way they are. <<br /><br />Again, entirely missing the point. I am aware of some of the studies you mention, and they don’t seem to pose any mystery deeper than human physiology can tackle. Nothing at all to do with evidence pro or against mysticism or supernaturalism.<br /><br />Waldemar,<br /><br />> if we agree that science is just a collection of propositions whose meanings (in the peircean sense of 'interpretant') point to outside them, I mean, to objects we assume that are in the universe? If so, we must admit that what's being proved, if anything, are the articulated propositions. Strictly speaking, no experimentation can cause any proposition to become true: they are just correlated facts. <<br /><br />I’m not at all sure where you are going with this, nor why is it germane to the post, but I’m sure I’m missing something...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67714700070549475392013-07-23T14:00:21.310-04:002013-07-23T14:00:21.310-04:00@Waldemar, "I don't see how this implies ...@Waldemar, "I don't see how this implies 'immateriality' (an idea I think you support since we debated in the comments of Massimo's last post), is: how this statement implies the existence of immateriality as a kind of medium that directly interferes with the overall accepted material medium?"<br />What it implies is there's more to material than the usual definition of matter. And when those such as Massimo deny that intelligence is an integral part of matter, in that material formations seem (to me at least) to have invariably been intelligently constructed, and physical laws seem to have been intelligently evolved (as may seem to Smolin and others as well), then if the intelligent strategies involved are not part of their material, then "immaterialiaty" is as good a word as any to describe the type of intelligence that Massimo would say "emerges" here and there when needed.<br />But immaterial is defined as: "unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant."<br />So non-material might be a better term, or material in the context of natural substances may simply need, as you suggest, to be redefined.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48977385910107145712013-07-23T13:38:29.315-04:002013-07-23T13:38:29.315-04:00Lawson, I've long been familiar with that rese...Lawson, I've long been familiar with that research, and I didn't know you wanted it to be analyzed on this forum. My intent was to make a brief comment about the differences in East and West approaches to what each will feel are scientific, yet each will disagree with the other's approaches as proper science. <br />And so of course I viewed your entire discourse as being essentially a religiously derived explanation. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it didn't leave much room for an alternative approach, now did it.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.com