|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 13, 2014 8:43:09 GMT -5
As far as science explaining all natural phenomena, if we give that all phenomena is natural, whether or not we ever get around to actually discovering it is besides the point since there would be, by the very definition of it being natural, a measurable explanation. Yeah, that does us no good, but if we could ever concretely rule out the supernatural, we could at least at that point rest assured that everything can be explained. I think we're very close to ruling out the supernatural, and based on all the accumulative evidence I've read about in terms of science, history, etc., all arrows are pointing to the non-existence of magic. Your point about all phenomena being natural is the basis of all science, and if magic did exist, it would be a part of nature. It would just be a part of nature we do not understand yet. (I really liked that Mark Waid story in Fantastic Four where Reed Richards approaches magic as if it were just another science and has a hard time mastering it, because it proceeds in ways that are unfamiliar to him. He does, however, manage to make it work, because like any other disciplines it must have rules that can be understood, even if they are counter-intuitive… a bit like quantum physics, really. ""If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics", said Richard Feynman). Of course, the difference between Marvel Universe magic and Real World magic is that the former actually does something. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 10:42:39 GMT -5
Antibiotics work. You can prove that. And there's a damn good reason to believe in them. Thalidomide worked, too. Forgive me if I don't prostrate myself at the altar of science, or for that matter at any other altar. (Not what you, of all people, are saying in this thread, shax, I'm well aware. Just happened to seize on this statement to make a point in my delightfully pugnacious way, is all.) |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 11:41:07 GMT -5
Richard Dawkins (famous biologist and nowadays atheistic polemicist) once explained that when he says "God does not exist", it is just a simpler way of saying (more accurately) "God very likely does not exist". I think that's an excellent fence to sit upon. "Ghosts very likely do not exist...but it's possible". Additionally, I'm assuming Dawkins never had a "religious experience." Granted, those are subjective events and fly in the face of substantiated evidence, but our own subjective impressions are more meaningful to us than cold science. Descartes would agree. So someone who has a striking experience that feels supernatural in nature is going to be more interested in the "...but it's possible" aspect. That doesn't mean walking around assuming ghosts are 100% real and espousing as much, but it's a prompt to keep one's mind more open and more interested in probing the unknown. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 11:44:40 GMT -5
I think we're very close to ruling out the supernatural, How could that ever be possible? As much as there's no way I believe in the boogeyman, no one's ever going to be able to prove that he doesn't exist. Doubtful since, to empirically examine something, you first have to quantify it, and "magic," much like "ghosts," is an umbrella term for a lot of very different ideas. And again, science will never be able to prove a negative. It can provide groundwork to rationally debate against the existence of something, but not to adamantly disprove it. I should know. That great Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky told me so  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 13, 2014 11:48:31 GMT -5
There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. That's the rubric. Everything else is semantics.
Monkeys might fly out of my butt. But experience and science tell us that that possibility is so close to zero that it simply doesn't count.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 11:52:41 GMT -5
Monkeys might fly out of my butt. But experience and science tell us that that possibility is so close to zero that it simply doesn't count. And there's the crux of the debate. If I'm certain I've experienced something, that personal experience is going to mean more to me than science's "well, we can't disprove it, but we're pretty sure it didn't happen." If it didn't happen to you, it's easy to scoff. Again, I'm on the fence. I've had more disturbing, demonstrable, and credible experiences with the supposed supernatural than most, and yet I still maintain my healthy skepticism. I don't know how else to explain what happened, and neither does anyone else, but I refuse to jump to conclusions. But you don't go through what I've gone through, or what several others here have gone through, and just go "Nah. Can't be." That's not science; that's dismissing personal evidence in adherence to a faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 13, 2014 12:02:50 GMT -5
I've seen monkeys fly out of someone's butt. I defy science to prove I did not see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 13, 2014 12:42:39 GMT -5
This is the exact opposite of what the supernaturalists do - their position is "I saw a ghost" or "I felt a presence" and therefore the supernatural exists and your puny science can't understand. The skeptic says hang on, where's the objective proof - your personal belief or interpretation of ghosts / reiki / clairvoyance / homeopathy / miscellaneous woo is not proof. But nothing the skeptic says or does will shift that belief in the supernaturalist. That's painting in broad strokes. While this may be true of some individuals, I don't think that's a fair characterization of all who believe in the supernatural, or at least are open to the possibilty. And I think this paragraph right here proves my point. Effectively, you are saying that no evidence will convince said skeptic because his worldview does not permit it. The point of the atheist example was that the problem, at its root, is not evidence or lack thereof. The problem is one of confirmation bias. Suppose a hypothetical unbeliever were provided with multiple evidences regarding a supernatural occurrence. As you pointed out, a good unbeliever who tenaciously holds to his worldview would say that there's some rational scientific explanation for said occurrences, that it couldn't possibly be evidence of the supernatural because we all know such a thing does not exist. But that's a very different thing from saying one does not believe because there is a lack of evidence. In effect, the unbeliever is saying that you could provide him with lots of evidence, but none of it would be evidence for the supernatural. At best he might be willing to admit that something strange and unexplainable happened, but surely it wasn't something supernatural. The evidence will never be adequate because his worldview does not permit him to interpret the evidence in such a way that the possibility exists. You wrote "But nothing the skeptic says or does will shift that belief in the supernaturalist." Couldn't the same be said of the unbeliever as well? For the record, I am generally pretty skeptical of most supernatural claims as well, so I'm not necessarily defending the existence of ghosts or other such things per se. My point in all of this is that all of us -- believers, unbelievers, skeptics, etc --should be more aware and honest in acknowledging our own assumptions when engaging in these types of debates. It's not as if believers are acting on faith while unbelievers are being purely rational. Both positions can be held with some measure of reason and some measure of faith. And by faith, I don't use that word to mean "blind faith" or irrational belief that contradicts clear evidence. A lot of folks treat that as a dirty word, as if it cannot coexist with logic and reason. But I would submit that faith can also entail trust in a belief or position or person based on past experience or evidence and a probabilistic likelihood that the future will be like the past. In that sense, we're all exercising faith. So let's admit that. That's all I'm trying to say. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 13:09:45 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that science, in general, isn't interested in further exploring the possibility or lack of possibility of the supernatural. Very few foundations are writing grants for that kind of thing, and no corporations are underwriting them.
Let's not forget that science, in most cases, is driven by the market. If it isn't profitable or wildly exciting, the funding isn't there, so unless some shyster scientist is going to convince a university that he WILL find evidence of ghosts, he's not getting a research grant to explore the possibility of the supernatural.
So science isn't some objective, unbiased, entity either. It has no reason to further develop its understanding of supernatural phenomena because most people in and bankrolling the science community already assume there's nothing to find and, thus, aren't willing to provide the funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 19:02:07 GMT -5
There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. Maybe because science isn't that smart yet? That doesn't mean the undetectable is not there. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 13, 2014 19:25:46 GMT -5
There is no scientific evidence of the supernatural. Maybe because science isn't that smart yet? That doesn't mean the undetectable is not there. In absolute terms, that's true. However, by that standard, the odds that ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, bigfoot, the Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, mint issues of Brother Power #3, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians or C'thulluh exist are all equal. Which means that even if the possibility that these things exist is not zero, it might as well be for all intents and purposes. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 19:51:55 GMT -5
However, by that standard, the odds that ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, bigfoot, the Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, mint issues of Brother Power #3, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians or C'thulluh exist are all equal. Not really. Again, The Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians, and C'Thulluh are all highly specific concepts. The likelihood that these things exist, more or less, to the extent they've been imagined, is highly unlikely. ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and big foot are more ambiguous concepts where wide variations in expectation exist. Therefore, they are more likely to be possible. And I own a 9.2 Brother Power the Geek #3, but I highly doubt there's a mint copy out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 13, 2014 19:57:59 GMT -5
For the record, I am generally pretty skeptical of most supernatural claims as well, so I'm not necessarily defending the existence of ghosts or other such things per se. My point in all of this is that all of us -- believers, unbelievers, skeptics, etc --should be more aware and honest in acknowledging our own assumptions when engaging in these types of debates. It's not as if believers are acting on faith while unbelievers are being purely rational. Both positions can be held with some measure of reason and some measure of faith. And by faith, I don't use that word to mean "blind faith" or irrational belief that contradicts clear evidence. A lot of folks treat that as a dirty word, as if it cannot coexist with logic and reason. But I would submit that faith can also entail trust in a belief or position or person based on past experience or evidence and a probabilistic likelihood that the future will be like the past. In that sense, we're all exercising faith. So let's admit that. That's all I'm trying to say. Yes, the word "faith" can be used in that sense in common parlance. But I see a strong difference between faith in antibiotics, which is based on observation, experimentation and repeated confirmation, and faith in Santa Claus, which is based on stories and on the fact nobody can disprove Santa's existence. It's true that no scientist has the time to recapitulate each and every experiment ever done in history before attempting something new using past works as a starting point. Since this big edifice we call science seems to work, insofar as curing infectious diseases or sending robots on comets goes, we tend to give Newton and Einstein and Pasteur (but mostly those who came after them and tested, modified and refined their ideas) a lot of credit, which is indeed something akin to actual faith; not because these people could do no wrong, but because their work has been checked and rechecked. Because as of now we have never encountered any need for a "supernatural" element in our understanding of nature, parsimony leads us to assume that nature is all there is: whatever new thing we discover, no matter how surprising, it is expected to be a part of nature. Is that too rash a decision to make? Isn't it like just saying "whatever is, is"? I find it strange when skeptics are accused of wearing blinders because they won't acknowledge that there is more to the universe than what their worldview entails. I'd say the exact opposite is true, because their worldview is pretty much all-encompassing: anything that exists exists, and as such can be quantified and studied. Opposing that worldview is the one where things that we can't explain are immediately identified by a non-skeptic. Case #1: a glowing light is seen in the night sky, hovering over a town, and then zooming away at high speed. skeptic: I don't know what that was, but I'm sure there's some rational explanation. believer: It's a flying saucer from another planet. Case #2: a strange humanlike form is seen in a cemetery and vanishes suddenly. skeptic: I don't know what that was, but even if it was pretty spooky I'm sure there's some rational explanation. believe: it's a ghost. Case #3: someone very ill suddenly beats a viral infection, much to his doctor's surprise. skeptic: I don't know what hapened, but I'm sure there must be some rational explanation. believer: it's a miracle from God. Note that in all these cases, the certainty is not on the skeptic's side; it's on the other side. Sure, the skeptic always insists that there must be some rational explanation, but is it better to postulate an irrational one? Besides, saying "it's a ghost" isn't an irrational explanation; it's just one that's unverified, based on no previous analysis, and solely dictated by cultural memes. It's trying to force an unsustainable certainty on an observation for which there is no obvious mundane explanation. That does not strike me as an enlightened position, and not one of greater open-mindedness; that strikes me as accepting too easily what culture suggests be the proper intepretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 13, 2014 20:01:32 GMT -5
However, by that standard, the odds that ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, bigfoot, the Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, mint issues of Brother Power #3, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians or C'thulluh exist are all equal. Not really. Again, The Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians, and C'Thulluh are all highly specific concepts. The likelihood that these things exist, more or less, to the extent they've been imagined, is highly unlikely. ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and big foot are more ambiguous concepts where wide variations in expectation exist. Therefore, they are more likely to be possible. And I own a 9.2 Brother Power the Geek #3, but I highly doubt there's a mint copy out there. Why are ghosts or ESP any more likely than Santa, shax? There's no evidence for them. The only true difference I see is that there are fewer adults believing in Santa. The only cases of woo where actual ambiguity are reported are things like acupuncture, where actual effects (weak, but statistically significant) have been reported. Not so for the power of prayer, telekinesis or telepathy. (Nor dowsing, come to think of it, even if a friend of mine swears that it works). I've no idea how acupuncture might work. I doubt it has anything to do with energy meridians nobody has ever been able to find, but I do not dispute the observation that in some cases, acupuncture can have effects. Somthere is something to be studied there, even if it does not square yet with my understanding of how a body works. But that's science: here's something new, it has to be tested. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 20:09:37 GMT -5
Not really. Again, The Matrix, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the giant spaghetti monster, Pellucidar, Martians, and C'Thulluh are all highly specific concepts. The likelihood that these things exist, more or less, to the extent they've been imagined, is highly unlikely. ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, and big foot are more ambiguous concepts where wide variations in expectation exist. Therefore, they are more likely to be possible. And I own a 9.2 Brother Power the Geek #3, but I highly doubt there's a mint copy out there. Why are ghosts or ESP any more likely than Santa, shax? Pretty sure I answered this above. Santa is an incredibly specific belief system. There's either a jolly old bearded dude who goes to every child's house every Christmas, bringing them gifts, or there isn't. ESP is an umbrella term for a phenomenon for which there are any number of possible explanations as to how it works and what it can actually do. Thus, there are a number of variable possibilities for things to exist that would fit under the label "ESP," and thus, it's more likely that ESP could exist. It still doesn't make the existence of ESP likely, but it's statistically more likely for something that fits the label of "ESP" to exist beyond the boundaries of known science than it is for as specific a belief system as the existence of Santa Claus. |
|
