Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on November 24, 2015, 06:26:39 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an interesting video about how the Pope's kiss shrank the tumor in a baby.
http://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/23/baby-brain-tumor-shrink-pope-kiss-dnt.kyw
Frankly, I do believe that such 'miraculous' cures can happen through changes in the biofield.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The tumour would have shrunk anyway Pope kiss, or no Pope kiss, imo!
-
Sriram,
Here is an interesting video about how the Pope's kiss shrank the tumor in a baby.
http://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/23/baby-brain-tumor-shrink-pope-kiss-dnt.kyw
Frankly, I do believe that such 'miraculous' cures can happen through changes in the biofield.
We haven't had a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy for a while now. Well done!
-
Sriram,
We haven't had a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy for a while now. Well done!
It's even more miraculous than that, I know of someone who's tumour shrank and she's never even seen the Pope, he's that powerful!!! It's almost like he must just dislike all the people that die of cancer... either that or the possibility that he had absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
Unfortunately, as it's a video clip and I'm at work, I can't get any more details on the case - anyone got a link to a text commentary of the story?
O.
-
I had a sore arse the other day and invited the Pope to kiss it and its all better now!
-
I had a sore arse the other day and invited the Pope to kiss it and its all better now!
Osculum infame!
-
'Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy!'
-
I had a sore arse the other day and invited the Pope to kiss it and its all better now!
Not funny!
-
Made me chuckle :)
-
Perhaps we could arrange for the Pope to kiss some annoyingly over-large egos that are in dire need of some serious shrinking.
Suggestions on the back of a postcard please!
-
Perhaps we could arrange for the Pope to kiss some annoyingly over-large egos that are in dire need of some serious shrinking.
Suggestions on the back of a postcard please!
I expect you to be first in the queue! :)
-
Perhaps we could arrange for the Pope to kiss some annoyingly over-large egos that are in dire need of some serious shrinking.
Suggestions on the back of a postcard please!
Don't tempt me! ;D
-
Another instance of how difficult it is for us to change our minds about something! Floo...you are a great example. :)
-
What is there to change our minds about? There's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever that a baby-bothering elderly man can alter the laws of nature at will and plenty of evidence that some people don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
-
What is there to change our minds about? There's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever that a baby-bothering elderly man can alter the laws of nature at will and plenty of evidence that some people don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
Why should he alter the laws of nature? Its all part of nature. Some of you have this ghost of the 'supernatural' in your minds...which you are unable to get rid of. You are unable t see it as a part of nature. That is the change of mind I am referring to.
-
Why should he alter the laws of nature?
The clear implication of this story is that the baby's tumour shrank following a kiss from the Pope because it was the Pope, given that presumably the baby is kissed by its parents and possibly others on a daily basis. That's invoking magic however you slice it.
Its all part of nature. Some of you have this ghost of the 'supernatural' in your minds...which you are unable to get rid of. You are unable t see it as a part of nature. That is the change of mind I am referring to.
Anything that's part of nature is by definition within the scope of scientific investigation. Anything posited as being outside of that - i.e. the supernatural - may as well be called ghostly.
-
Another instance of how difficult it is for us to change our minds about something! Floo...you are a great example. :)
What is there in this that should encourage us to change our minds? There are any number of things that have happened to this child, being kissed by an Argentinian is just one of them. Why should we attach special significance to this?
If you want to convince us that this is significant you need to have a number of sick children kissed by old Argentians, and another group not kissed by old Argentinians, and then a comparison of the comparative outcomes of the two groups.
Otherwise it's as likely that his particular dining table has miracle healing powers, or his highchair.
O.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an interesting video about how the Pope's kiss shrank the tumor in a baby.
http://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/23/baby-brain-tumor-shrink-pope-kiss-dnt.kyw
Frankly, I do believe that such 'miraculous' cures can happen through changes in the biofield.
Cheers.
Sriram
It was probably his breath that did it!
-
Well that's a bit scurrilous, isn't it?
-
Well that's a bit scurrilous, isn't it?
A bit coarse, yes; a bit jocular, yes.
-
The clear implication of this story is that the baby's tumour shrank following a kiss from the Pope because it was the Pope, given that presumably the baby is kissed by its parents and possibly others on a daily basis. That's invoking magic however you slice it.
Anything that's part of nature is by definition within the scope of scientific investigation. Anything posited as being outside of that - i.e. the supernatural - may as well be called ghostly.
Its not magic. Its a part of our natural world. You are just not familiar with it That's all.
Its about the biofield (check my thread on that subject). Many people who are familiar with it and work with it, will not find it at all surprising that the Pope's kiss or Floo's field or placing of hands or prayer can cause illnesses to disappear.
People think of it as a miracle but it is really not.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an interesting video about how the Pope's kiss shrank the tumor in a baby.
http://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/23/baby-brain-tumor-shrink-pope-kiss-dnt.kyw
Frankly, I do believe that such 'miraculous' cures can happen through changes in the biofield.
Cheers.
Sriram
I'm laying bets on Francis being the first person to be canonised whilst still alive. It seems popes are automatically canonised nowadays anyway and Francis is a personality cult much like John Paul II who, by the ultramontanist neo-conservatives, is already referred to as "the Great". Yuck!
-
Its not magic. Its a part of our natural world. You are just not familiar with it That's all.
Its about the biofield (check my thread on that subject). Many people who are familiar with it and work with it, will not find it at all surprising that the Pope's kiss or Floo's field or placing of hands or prayer can cause illnesses to disappear.
People think of it as a miracle but it is really not.
You certainly love your narrow, brain switched off, dream world Sriram.
ippy
-
The tumour would have shrunk anyway Pope kiss, or no Pope kiss, imo!
Do you have any evidence for that suggestion, Floo?
-
Do you have any evidence for that suggestion, Floo?
We have evidence of of these things happening naturally, so that is the default position.
-
Anything that's part of nature is by definition within the scope of scientific investigation. Anything posited as being outside of that - i.e. the supernatural - may as well be called ghostly.
Not true, Shakes. There are things that are part and parcel of daily life that are not really within the scope of scientific investigation. For intance, the idea of beauty. I accept that scientific investigation can come up with generalized patterns of understanding this, but I'm not aware of any way in which science can explain let alone predict what individuals will regard as beautiful or not.
-
Do you have any evidence for that suggestion, Floo?
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
ippy.
-
We have evidence of of these things happening naturally, so that is the default position.
Sorry, BR, but neither Floo nor you have any evidence for the comment that Floo made in this particular situation. At the same time, doi you actually have evidence that 'natural' events haven't been influenced by other things such as prayer, the biofield, or whatever? As far as I am aware, educated to some degree by comments made by folk here, there is often no scientific investigative explanation for the 'natural' events which, if Shakes definition of something being part of nature is correct, there has to be.
-
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
ippy.
Yup, since you have never been able to provide any scientific evidence for certain outcomes that - if Shakes is to be believed - there necessarily has to be. Can you change that habit of a lifetime?
-
Yup, since you have never been able to provide any scientific evidence for certain outcomes that - if Shakes is to be believed - there necessarily has to be. Can you change that habit of a lifetime?
Thus:
Can you change that habit of a lifetime?
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
Ippy
-
If the Pope's kiss can shrink things, then I assume he has kissed the brains of the atheists on this forum. ;D
-
Thus:
Can you change that habit of a lifetime?
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
Ippy
At least I try to use valid argumentation, ippy; not sure that you have quite as strong a grasp of the concept as many here ;)
-
At least I try to use valid argumentation, ippy
When?
-
Not true, Shakes. There are things that are part and parcel of daily life that are not really within the scope of scientific investigation. For intance, the idea of beauty.
Psychology and neurology, possibly sociology to a degree as well, so far as concepts of beauty vary.
I accept that scientific investigation can come up with generalized patterns of understanding this, but I'm not aware of any way in which science can explain let alone predict what individuals will regard as beautiful or not.
That we're not at that level of achievement yet doesn't put the idea beyond science's remit, just beyond current capacity.
O.
-
Sorry, BR, but neither Floo nor you have any evidence for the comment that Floo made in this particular situation.
Tumours have been known to spontaneously regress in other instances where Argentinian kisses were not administered. Why would we presume that this one event made a difference? Is it the Argentinian-ness or the celibacy, or the collection of novelty hats that gives it the healing effect?
At the same time, doi you actually have evidence that 'natural' events haven't been influenced by other things such as prayer, the biofield, or whatever? As far as I am aware, educated to some degree by comments made by folk here, there is often no scientific investigative explanation for the 'natural' events which, if Shakes definition of something being part of nature is correct, there has to be.
No, there doesn't have to be, there are natural phenomena of which we currently don't know everything. As to evidence, yes, there is: experiments have been on conjectures of biofields, effects of intercessionary prayer and the like which have shown them to have no discernible effect.
O.
[/quote]
-
At least I try to use valid argumentation, ippy; not sure that you have quite as strong a grasp of the concept as many here ;)
Why do you think because you believe in sky fairies, or the equivalent you happen to refer to as god Jesus etc, and all of the other dross that goes with these beliefs needs other people to prove to you or for you that these sky fairies, or however it is you would like them described, that can only live in your imagination, are in fact really there and not just figments of your imagination.
You're obviously not certain that these sky fairies or god figures really exist or you wouldn't be consistently asking for negative proof the amount of times you do, thus:
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
ippy
-
No, there doesn't have to be, there are natural phenomena of which we currently don't know everything. As to evidence, yes, there is: experiments have been on conjectures of biofields, effects of intercessionary prayer and the like which have shown them to have no discernible effect.
O.
The positive effects of prayer, meditation, faith, positive thinking etc. have been documented. Its all normally dismissed as placebo effect though no one has any idea what placebo actually is.
The effects of the mind (which is related to the biofield) are actually well known....only thing is we keep saying....'the brain is remarkable and does all these marvelous things' ...and leave it at that!
-
The positive effects of prayer, meditation, faith, positive thinking etc. have been documented. Its all normally dismissed as placebo effect though no one has any idea what placebo actually is.
The effects of the mind (which is related to the biofield) are actually well known....only thing is we keep saying....'the brain is remarkable and does all these marvelous things' ...and leave it at that!
As it is unlikely any deity is listening to prayers, it can only be that from time to time the act of praying itself has a beneficial effect on the individual concerned, imo.
-
The positive effects of prayer, meditation, faith, positive thinking etc. have been documented. Its all normally dismissed as placebo effect though no one has any idea what placebo actually is.
We have a very good idea what the placebo effect is, we just don't have a great understanding of all the ways in which it works. What we know about placebo is that if something is as effective as placebo it means that it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome.
The effects of the mind (which is related to the biofield) are actually well known....only thing is we keep saying....'the brain is remarkable and does all these marvelous things' ...and leave it at that!
The human body as a machine, of which the brain is an intrinsic part, is capable of many things. Biofields, as yet, have not been demonstrated. Prayer as a form of meditation or mindfulness has been shown to have a calming effect on the person praying, but intercessionary prayer or prayer for healing has been demonstrated to be ineffective.
O.
-
As it is unlikely any deity is listening to prayers, it can only be that from time to time the act of praying itself has a beneficial effect on the individual concerned, imo.
What did you think I am saying?!
-
What did you think I am saying?!
I don't always find your posts particularly easy to follow, probably because I am a senile old bat! ;D
-
I don't always find your posts particularly easy to follow, probably because I am a senile old bat! ;D
I am not exactly a youngster myself! :)
Let me explain. The whole basis of spirituality is what you mentioned in your previous post. Prayer and faith (regardless of the deity) have an effect on our mind and biofield... which can cure certain illnesses (especially mental conditions), produce a happy state of mind and so on.
This is the reason Hindus don't care who you pray to...as long as you pray. Karma also works that way. Its never about the intervention of a real God from somewhere high up in the sky.
-
Tumours have been known to spontaneously regress in other instances where Argentinian kisses were not administered. Why would we presume that this one event made a difference? Is it the Argentinian-ness or the celibacy, or the collection of novelty hats that gives it the healing effect?
The problem with these so-called 'spontaneous regressions' is that they have no scientific explanations behind them, they are not - as far as anyone knows - repeatable, and we have no idea what other influences that might have been being brought to bear on the situations leading up to them. As such, they do not fit any of the tidy patterns that science - in this case, medical - likes to develop.
No, there doesn't have to be, there are natural phenomena of which we currently don't know everything. As to evidence, yes, there is: experiments have been on conjectures of biofields, effects of intercessionary prayer and the like which have shown them to have no discernible effect.
The problkem with that argument, O, is that all that you refer to is within the context of sceintific knowledge. As I pointed out above, all the regressions/healings are outside that context. Lest you forget, its folk like yourself who erect the parameters that limit the areas that science can deal with. I happen to believe that those parameters are unrealistically limiting.
-
We have a very good idea what the placebo effect is, we just don't have a great understanding of all the ways in which it works. What we know about placebo is that if something is as effective as placebo it means that it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome.
No, all we have is a very good idea of what the placebo effect is within the confined context of scientific medicine. What we don't have is an idea as to whether it can have an impact beyond those limits.
As for whether intercessionary prayer or prayer for healing has been demonstrated to be ineffective or not, we are not in a position to say because science doesn't have the mechanisms to measure that effectiveness. All I will say here is that when medical science tells someone that they have x months to live and that there is nothing medical that can be done to help them, if they survive longer than that number of months and receive clean bills of health despite what the doctors say, there is something that science hasn't managed to come to terms with at play.
-
You're obviously not certain that these sky fairies or god figures really exist or you wouldn't be consistently asking for negative proof the amount of times you do, thus:
"Here WE Go Again Happy As Can Be"
ippy
Except that, despite Shakes' insistence, I don't ask for negative proof. Asking someone to provide evidence for an assertion, isn't the same as asking for negative proof.
-
I am not exactly a youngster myself! :)
Let me explain. The whole basis of spirituality is what you mentioned in your previous post. Prayer and faith (regardless of the deity) have an effect on our mind and biofield... which can cure certain illnesses (especially mental conditions), produce a happy state of mind and so on.
This is the reason Hindus don't care who you pray to...as long as you pray. Karma also works that way. Its never about the intervention of a real God from somewhere high up in the sky.
Fair enough. :)
-
The problem with these so-called 'spontaneous regressions' is that they have no scientific explanations behind them, they are not - as far as anyone knows - repeatable, and we have no idea what other influences that might have been being brought to bear on the situations leading up to them. As such, they do not fit any of the tidy patterns that science - in this case, medical - likes to develop.
Absolutely agree. The correct thing to do, therefore, is to say 'We don't know', not to say 'It must have been papal saliva!'.
The problem with that argument, O, is that all that you refer to is within the context of sceintific knowledge. As I pointed out above, all the regressions/healings are outside that context. Lest you forget, its folk like yourself who erect the parameters that limit the areas that science can deal with. I happen to believe that those parameters are unrealistically limiting.
Spontaneous regression isn't making a scientific claim, it's saying that so far as we can see there's no obvious cause. When people make claims of other causes we can investigate scientifically and show that there is no reason to think those explanations are the case.
It might very well be special Christian magic done by the Pope, but in the absence of a mechanism, or any reliable way to determining why that time it worked and other times it doesn't, Papal magic is indistinguishable from 'we don't know', or from a placebo.
Spontaneous regression, as a phrase, isn't a presumption of a natural cause, it's an admission of 'we don't know'. To try to fit magical explanations in would be equally wrong.
O.
-
Except that, despite Shakes' insistence, I don't ask for negative proof. Asking someone to provide evidence for an assertion, isn't the same as asking for negative proof.
Correct; the negative proof fallacy consists of either (1) taking X to be true or (2) considering X to be worth taking seriously or giving head-room to, in the absence of explicit counterevidence. (2) is your typical ploy.
-
Correct; the negative proof fallacy consists of either (1) taking X to be true or (2) considering X to be worth taking seriously or giving head-room to, in the absence of explicit counterevidence. (2) is your typical ploy.
So, you're imnto making up definitions now are you, Shakes (option 2)?
As for the reference to the NPF here, Floo made an assertion in post #2 - "The tumour would have shrunk anyway Pope kiss, or no Pope kiss, imo!" OK, I accept that she hedged her bets by adding the 'imo', at the end. Since you have taken up her cause, perhaps you can provide some evidence to support her assertion, or are you not too keen on making yourself look even more of an idiot than you have already.
-
Absolutely agree. The correct thing to do, therefore, is to say 'We don't know', not to say 'It must have been papal saliva!'.
Point 1: I didn't say that it must have been papal saliva. Point 2: I didn't say that it couldn't have been something beyond scientific understanding.
-
That we're not at that level of achievement yet doesn't put the idea beyond science's remit, just beyond current capacity.
Yet your posts indicate an assumption, as does this one, that at some point in the future, it won't be beyond current capacity. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Remember that, as in the financial world, past records can't be relied on as indicative of the future.
-
So, you're imnto making up definitions now are you, Shakes (option 2)?
No. It's an accepted part of the standard definition of your favourite form of sloppy reasoning.
As for the reference to the NPF here, Floo made an assertion in post #2 - "The tumour would have shrunk anyway Pope kiss, or no Pope kiss, imo!" OK, I accept that she hedged her bets by adding the 'imo', at the end. Since you have taken up her cause, perhaps you can provide some evidence to support her assertion, or are you not too keen on making yourself look even more of an idiot than you have already.
I'm not taking up Floo's cause; as ever I'm pointing out where and why what pass for your "reasoning" "abilities" are so woefully flawed.
-
No. It's an accepted part of the standard definition 9f your favourite form of sloppy reasoning.
No such reference in the rationalwiki definition.
I'm not taking up Floo's cause; as ever I'm pointing out where and why what pass for your "reasoning" "abilities" are so woefully flawed.
Oh, I'm sorry, Shaker. I assumed that, since the post you quoted in your post was the latest post to have appeared in a discussion that had stemmed from Floo's opening post on the thread, you were supporting her position. My bad.
Mind you, your alternative reason isn't much better. It seems to me that you toss 'NPF' and other archane comments like it in so that you don't actually have to articulate your own understanding. Not a particularly clever argumentation method.
-
Except that, despite Shakes' insistence, I don't ask for negative proof. Asking someone to provide evidence for an assertion, isn't the same as asking for negative proof.
I could have understood this post of yours but for something about an assertion.
Assertions, not a speciality of mine it's more an area for you Hope, assertion is more your thing.
ippy
-
Not true, Shakes. There are things that are part and parcel of daily life that are not really within the scope of scientific investigation. For intance, the idea of beauty. I accept that scientific investigation can come up with generalized patterns of understanding this, but I'm not aware of any way in which science can explain let alone predict what individuals will regard as beautiful or not.
What has a shrinking tumour got to do with the idea of beauty?
-
No such reference in the rationalwiki definition.
And? Not tremendously long ago I supplied you with about half a dozen different links defining said fallacy, since you seemed to be standing in need of having it explained to you. I'm not convinced you're any the wiser now, frankly, as you're still at it.
Oh, I'm sorry, Shaker. I assumed that, since the post you quoted in your post was the latest post to have appeared in a discussion that had stemmed from Floo's opening post on the thread, you were supporting her position.
That's OK, just be more careful next time.
My bad.
Yup.
Mind you, your alternative reason isn't much better. It seems to me that you toss 'NPF' and other archane comments like it in so that you don't actually have to articulate your own understanding. Not a particularly clever argumentation method.
No, I keep pointing it out because you keep doing it, in the so far vain but optimistic expectation that eventually some light will dawn and you will finally realise why you (repeatedly) commit such an egregious fallacy and stop doing it. As Outrider said fairly recently, most people at least try to hide the fallacies they commit, whereas yours couldn't be more brazen if they came heralded with flashing neon lights, a firework display, a fly-past by the Red Arrows and a 40-piece marching band (plus cheerleaders) playing Hopeless Days Are Here Again.
I concede that by now you've demonstrated yourself to be so impervious to reason or logical thought that his is unlikely to happen - as I've said before, there's such a thing as the triumph of experience over Hope. And there's a certain Schadenfreude to be enjoyed in seeing the inept and unaware make fools of themselves, as any observer of Conservative politicians or reader of your posts can testify.
-
Absolutely agree. The correct thing to do, therefore, is to say 'We don't know', not to say 'It must have been papal saliva!'.
Spontaneous regression isn't making a scientific claim, it's saying that so far as we can see there's no obvious cause. When people make claims of other causes we can investigate scientifically and show that there is no reason to think those explanations are the case.
It might very well be special Christian magic done by the Pope, but in the absence of a mechanism, or any reliable way to determining why that time it worked and other times it doesn't, Papal magic is indistinguishable from 'we don't know', or from a placebo.
Spontaneous regression, as a phrase, isn't a presumption of a natural cause, it's an admission of 'we don't know'. To try to fit magical explanations in would be equally wrong.
O.
Funnily enough...science revels in unscientific conclusions in many (most?) situations. Spontaneous remission, placebo, random gene variation, Emergence...and many others are examples. Anything that is not known is put in the category of chance and accident and randomness....though it is clear that the world is anything but random.
Fine.... religious mythology and 'God did it' are not suitable explanations....I agree.
But there are alternative possibilities such as biofield, consciousness/intelligence being integral to nature etc. that common folk are able to discern....but which are lumped with religious mythology and treated as 'supernatural explanations'and thrown out ....by the intellectual and rational brigade.
Scientists should be able to separate religion from those phenomena that are subtle and not obvious to our normal senses and instruments. These should be investigated with suitable methods that respect the subtlety of the phenomenon......instead of applying the same old methods and techniques again and again and concluding that 'there is nothing there!'. A case of looking at the cosmos with a microscope and concluding that 'there is nothing there'.
Some people are of course, trying to bridge the gap with... 'Participatory Anthropic Principle', ' Gaia hypothesis', 'Copenhagen Interpretation of QM', 'many worlds theory', 'consciousness in plants' and such others. There is also growing evidence that the world is not as it appears through such phenomena as NDE's, ESP, spontaneous cures .....but there is no changing the mind of the mainstream folks. Its always the same old stuffing a square peg into round hole and yelling 'it doesn't fit' and the perennial 'suitable evidence' demand!
I have hope though. I expect the situation will change in coming generations!
-
Funnily enough...science revels in unscientific conclusions in many (most?) situations. Spontaneous remission, placebo, random gene variation, Emergence...and many others are examples. Anything that is not known is put in the category of chance and accident and randomness....though it is clear that the world is anything but random.
Well, current prevailing ideas at the quantum level, certainly, is randomness, though I have my own doubts about that, too. How are those scientific 'conclusions' wrong - they aren't claiming to know a mechanism, but they are undeniably observed phenomena. Should science pretend that it has an explanation and compromise the integrity of the claims it does make?
Fine.... religious mythology and 'God did it' are not suitable explanations....I agree.
:)
But there are alternative possibilities such as biofield
But biofields are in the same basket as 'God did it' - people claim it, but there's no reliable evidence to support it, no suggestion of a mechanism by which it would work that we could test, and no phenomena that would support the idea that it actually exists in the first place.
consciousness/intelligence being integral to nature etc.
That rather depends what you mean by the expression. If you mean consciousness emerges from some natural activities, well yes, but how does that affect tumours, and how would you go about demonstrating or measuring that any more precisely than the current medical demonstrations that people with a 'positive' attitude tend to recover slightly (only slightly) more often or to a greater degree than people with a 'negative' attitude?
that common folk are able to discern....but which are lumped with religious mythology and treated as 'supernatural explanations'and thrown out ....by the intellectual and rational brigade.
And for the same reasons - not because (necessarily) they are definitively wrong, but either because they have been tested and been shown not to be consistent or present at all, or because they are claimed to be unreliable by nature and are therefore untestable.
Scientists should be able to separate religion from those phenomena that are subtle and not obvious to our normal senses and instruments.
They generally are. The things you are suggesting aren't demonstrated phenomena, they are suppositions suggested as mechanics for observable phenomena - we can't detect 'biofields', they are posited as an explanation for illness and healing which we can detect.
These should be investigated with suitable methods that respect the subtlety of the phenomenon......instead of applying the same old methods and techniques again and again and concluding that 'there is nothing there!'. A case of looking at the cosmos with a microscope and concluding that 'there is nothing there'.
When someone can suggest a reliable method for testing these ideas, typically, they are tested, and when they are demonstrated to be undetectable from background chance they are discarded as unproven. There is no 'conspiracy' here - the scientist that can demonstrate biofields will be a shoe in for a Nobel Prize, there's no sensible reason why a scientific researcher would not be working on this if there were a means by which it could be demonstrated.
Some people are of course, trying to bridge the gap with... 'Participatory Anthropic Principle', ' Gaia hypothesis', 'Copenhagen Interpretation of QM', 'many worlds theory', 'consciousness in plants' and such others.
Those are a mixed bag - specific predictions from things like multiple universes (a variant of the 'many worlds theory') can be made and in theory tested at some point. Likewise the Copenhagen interpretation has implications which have been tested and shown not to be the case, which means at the least it needs a reworking. The Gaia hypothesis and consciousness in plants are making claims that aren't, to current understanding, testable even in principle, unless and until we make advances in the understanding of the nature of consciousness: they therefore remain conjecture, and science doesn't base understanding on conjecture.
There is also growing evidence that the world is not as it appears through such phenomena as NDE's, ESP, spontaneous cures .....but there is no changing the mind of the mainstream folks. Its always the same old stuffing a square peg into round hole and yelling 'it doesn't fit' and the perennial 'suitable evidence' demand!
NDE's are perfectly well explained by conventional science without recourse to claims of afterlives and travelling soul/spirit bodies. ESP has been repeatedly and thoroughly tested and has never been shown to be reliable. Spontaneous cures happen, no-one's denying that - the phrase just means that we don't know what causes them, and that's being honest, not pretending like we know something.
This is not 'stuffing a square peg into a round hole', it's having thousands of differently sized round holes and no evidence of any square holes anywhere ever, and you claiming that you've got a square peg that will fit perfectly, except you can't show anyone because it's 'special'.
I have hope though. I expect the situation will change in coming generations!
I have virtually no doubt that, at some point in the future, we will learn something that will show a degree of validity to one or two ideas that are currently seen as somewhere on the 'conjecture/pseudoscience/nonsense' spectrum, but not all of them, and not to the degree that they are claimed by adherents today.
O.
-
I keep pointing it out because you keep doing it, in the so far vain but optimistic expectation that eventually some light will dawn and you will finally realise why you (repeatedly) commit such an egregious fallacy and stop doing it.
The problem is that asking people to provide evidence for assertions they make - something you often do yourself - is not a fallacy of any sort. Arguing that it is, provides me with the kind of evidence that you have several times asked me to provide.
-
Spontaneous regression isn't making a scientific claim, it's saying that so far as we can see there's no obvious cause. When people make claims of other causes we can investigate scientifically and show that there is no reason to think those explanations are the case.
Except that, since there is often no scientific evidence or explanation (as has often been pointed out by the likes of yourself), showing that there is 'no reason to think those explanations are the case' is a fallacy.
-
Except that, since there is often no scientific evidence or explanation (as has often been pointed out by the likes of yourself), showing that there is 'no reason to think those explanations are the case' is a fallacy.
No, there's no reason in the lack of evidence to presume those explanations are wrong, but there's no reason to think they're right. Do you think that the claim 'spontaneous regression' is somehow a scientific claim that there is no cause? That's not the case, it means that we don't currently know the case: to claim ANY cause in the absence of evidence is wrong.
In the case of prayer - as an example - there have been experiments to see what effect, if any, it has on healing, and it's been shown to be completely ineffective. That's evidence to discount prayer, but not to discount anything else.
O.
-
Except that, since there is often no scientific evidence or explanation (as has often been pointed out by the likes of yourself), showing that there is 'no reason to think those explanations are the case' is a fallacy.
This is one of those things where you are nearly getting the point, but then ignoring it because you think it smells of poo and wee.
If there is something that cannot be explained, it goes into the box of not explainable. It is determined as that on the naturalistic methodology of science. To move it into another box which you are seeking to do you need another methodology. Incredulity isn't one. So for about the million and ninth time (because I know all the good numbers), do you have one?
-
The problem is that asking people to provide evidence for assertions they make - something you often do yourself - is not a fallacy of any sort. Arguing that it is, provides me with the kind of evidence that you have several times asked me to provide.
You are under a misapprehension, which is no surprise at all. Of course asking for evidence for a particular claim isn't a fallacy, but then nobody - nobody at all; not a single person - has said as much or argued on that basis. Well done for (inadvertently?) deploying yet another fallacy though, in this case the classic straw man. I won't bother trying to explain it.
I've already explained of what the negative proof fallacy consists so I'm not going to repeat it. Either you get it or you don't, and evidently you still don't.
-
Absolutely agree. The correct thing to do, therefore, is to say 'We don't know', not to say 'It must have been papal saliva!'.
Spontaneous regression isn't making a scientific claim, it's saying that so far as we can see there's no obvious cause. When people make claims of other causes we can investigate scientifically and show that there is no reason to think those explanations are the case.
It might very well be special Christian magic done by the Pope, but in the absence of a mechanism, or any reliable way to determining why that time it worked and other times it doesn't, Papal magic is indistinguishable from 'we don't know', or from a placebo.
Spontaneous regression, as a phrase, isn't a presumption of a natural cause, it's an admission of 'we don't know'. To try to fit magical explanations in would be equally wrong.
O.
The problem is not with wanting evidence. Wanting evidence does not automatically produce evidence. Evidence is dependent on our view point and perception....and how we choose to see it. Evidence unfortunately does not stand up and shout...'Hey...I am the evidence for such and such'.
An evidence could be staring us in the face everyday and we may not connect it to anything at all because we lack the specific background knowledge.
There is lots of evidence for lots of things all around us (that we don't know of currently)....but we don't and can't connect the dots correctly for various reasons. Our biases, our logical limitations, background knowledge and many other things influence how we identify and put together the evidence.
Secondly, what methods we use to observe and analyse the evidence is also important. The same methods and techniques that are useful for certain phenomena need not be useful for other phenomena (the microscope example).
So...demanding evidence is not enough. There should be some respect for what a majority of people observe and discern about the world.... and an intelligent analysis needs to be made of this and suitable methods of observation/analysis designed.
Otherwise we will keep having this large gap between what a majority of the people regard as valuable in their lives and what mainstream scientists regard as valuable. Which is actually an aberration...besides being unfortunate.
-
An evidence could be staring us in the face everyday and we may not connect it to anything at all because we lack the specific background knowledge.
That's entirely possible - that's why we don't pretend that observed phenomena aren't actually happening, we just don't pretend that we have explanations.
Secondly, what methods we use to observe and analyse the evidence is also important. The same methods and techniques that are useful for certain phenomena need not be useful for other phenomena (the microscope example).
Ah, methodology. I use various methodologies for various things: mathematics and logic have their uses. For the examination of physical phenomena, methodological naturalism is the default; science to the layman, and part of the methodology of science is that ideas without sufficient support within the framework aren't accepted. If you want them to be accepted outside of science you need to be explicit about what methodology you are using.
So...demanding evidence is not enough. There should be some respect for what a majority of people observe and discern about the world.... and an intelligent analysis needs to be made of this and suitable methods of observation/analysis designed.
No, there needn't be respect for majority opinion in explanations for physical phenomena - people, even in large groups, have been demonstrably wrong before, and will again. Certain political systems work on a methodology of popular support, but science doesn't.
Otherwise we will keep having this large gap between what a majority of the people regard as valuable in their lives and what mainstream scientists regard as valuable. Which is actually an aberration...besides being unfortunate.
Science, in general, doesn't rate what's subjectively important in people's lives, it assesses physical phenomena for causes. What people's opinion of those causes are, independent of the evidence, is meaningless (unless it's the source of data for work in psychology, perhaps).
O.
-
That's entirely possible - that's why we don't pretend that observed phenomena aren't actually happening, we just don't pretend that we have explanations.
Ah, methodology. I use various methodologies for various things: mathematics and logic have their uses. For the examination of physical phenomena, methodological naturalism is the default; science to the layman, and part of the methodology of science is that ideas without sufficient support within the framework aren't accepted. If you want them to be accepted outside of science you need to be explicit about what methodology you are using.
No, there needn't be respect for majority opinion in explanations for physical phenomena - people, even in large groups, have been demonstrably wrong before, and will again. Certain political systems work on a methodology of popular support, but science doesn't.
Science, in general, doesn't rate what's subjectively important in people's lives, it assesses physical phenomena for causes. What people's opinion of those causes are, independent of the evidence, is meaningless (unless it's the source of data for work in psychology, perhaps).
O.
".. part of the methodology of science is that ideas without sufficient support within the framework aren't accepted"
'within the framework' is the contentious point I am talking about. You fix a framework and then expect the world to fall within that....doesn't make sense. The framework has to be designed separately for different types of phenomena....which is my point.
I am not talking about popular support. I am talking about understanding why a majority (6 billion people is a lot) believe in certain things and value certain things. This is vital to understand life itself.
-
".. part of the methodology of science is that ideas without sufficient support within the framework aren't accepted"
'within the framework' is the contentious point I am talking about. You fix a framework and then expect the world to fall within that....doesn't make sense. The framework has to be designed separately for different types of phenomena....which is my point.
Then give a methodology. Suggest some non-material methodology by which we can check these suggestions, otherwise they just remain untestable assertions.
O.
-
The problem is not with wanting evidence. Wanting evidence does not automatically produce evidence. Evidence is dependent on our view point and perception....and how we choose to see it. Evidence unfortunately does not stand up and shout...'Hey...I am the evidence for such and such'.
An evidence could be staring us in the face everyday and we may not connect it to anything at all because we lack the specific background knowledge.
There is lots of evidence for lots of things all around us (that we don't know of currently)....but we don't and can't connect the dots correctly for various reasons. Our biases, our logical limitations, background knowledge and many other things influence how we identify and put together the evidence.
Secondly, what methods we use to observe and analyse the evidence is also important. The same methods and techniques that are useful for certain phenomena need not be useful for other phenomena (the microscope example).
So...demanding evidence is not enough. There should be some respect for what a majority of people observe and discern about the world.... and an intelligent analysis needs to be made of this and suitable methods of observation/analysis designed.
Otherwise we will keep having this large gap between what a majority of the people regard as valuable in their lives and what mainstream scientists regard as valuable. Which is actually an aberration...besides being unfortunate.
Have you heard the one, the humorous version, about how the Do Do is supposed to have disappeared Sriram? This post of yours is making it look as though you may end up suffering an exactly similar fate.
ippy
-
Then give a methodology. Suggest some non-material methodology by which we can check these suggestions, otherwise they just remain untestable assertions.
People have suggested such a methodology many times, and some use it as the evidence for their present faith-position. Its called 'experience' - ask Floo all about it.
-
People have suggested such a methodology many times, and some use it as the evidence for their present faith-position. Its called 'experience' - ask Floo all about it.
People are fallible, so your 'method' fails in terms of validity and reliability: not a 'method' at all!
-
People are fallible, so your 'method' fails in terms of validity and reliability: not a 'method' at all!
Gordon, I was responding to O's request for a 'non-material methodology by which we can check these suggestions, otherwise they just remain untestable assertions'. Floo makes a large play of her experience, as do some others like Matt - even yourself, sometimes. You seem quite happy to accept that as valid, yet not other forms of experience.
-
Gordon, I was responding to O's request for a 'non-material methodology by which we can check these suggestions, otherwise they just remain untestable assertions'. Floo makes a large play of her experience, as do some others like Matt - even yourself, sometimes. You seem quite happy to accept that as valid, yet not other forms of experience.
I'm not aware that I've ever indicated that I accept 'experience' in isolation as being a critical indicator of what is true irrespective of who is doing the telling, and I'm even less aware that I'm in the habit of regularly posting about my own personal experiences: so I think that you are flying a kite here.
-
People have suggested such a methodology many times, and some use it as the evidence for their present faith-position. Its called 'experience' - ask Floo all about it.
Experience - subjective, demonstrable inaccurate and untestable.
Not exactly a reliable methodology - how do you differentiate the claim of experience from someone making stories up?
O.
-
Gordon, I was responding to O's request for a 'non-material methodology by which we can check these suggestions, otherwise they just remain untestable assertions'. Floo makes a large play of her experience, as do some others like Matt - even yourself, sometimes. You seem quite happy to accept that as valid, yet not other forms of experience.
Our experiences in life shape the way we are to a certain extent. My experience of religion wasn't pleasant and I have lived the majority of my life without believing in any deity. It has worked for me, just as other people believe their faith works for them. I have never denied that I could be in error and a deity really does exist, in which case I am going to hell, whatever the meaning of that term really is. What I don't think is right is having a faith as a means of fire insurance, so to speak, which I think is the way some folk view it.
-
What I don't think is right is having a faith as a means of fire insurance, so to speak, which I think is the way some folk view it.
I suspect you're correct - rather like the leaders of the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist political parties in Nepal attending regular 'puja' - 'just in case'.
However, I think that you will find that with the reducing numbers of people claiming allegiance to a religious belief, this group of people (nominal believers) are getting less as well. In fact, I'd suggest that the main reason for the drop in allegiance numbers is because increasingly those nominal believers are no longer claiming that allegiance.
-
I'm sure the Pope is embarrassed at the publicity surrounding the shrinking of this person's tumour, he was probably only trying to give a bit of comfort and do the Popey thing along with it. He won't do that again in a hurry.
We all know that tumours often shrivel up and disappear. They aren't all cancerous growths.
-
However, I think that you will find that with the reducing numbers of people claiming allegiance to a religious belief, this group of people (nominal believers) are getting less as well. In fact, I'd suggest that the main reason for the drop in allegiance numbers is because increasingly those nominal believers are no longer claiming that allegiance.
But it isn't just the nominal allegiance brigade who are declining in numbers, it is also those who see religion as important to them and also are actively involved in religion. Certainly this is the case for the UK, and indeed for most developed countries where there is freedom of religion.
So the notion that religion is in robust health, just that the 'census' christian-types are less likely to tick the box, is not credible and not backed up by evidence.
-
But it isn't just the nominal allegiance brigade who are declining in numbers, it is also those who see religion as important to them and also are actively involved in religion. Certainly this is the case for the UK, and indeed for most developed countries where there is freedom of religion.
So the notion that religion is in robust health, just that the 'census' christian-types are less likely to tick the box, is not credible and not backed up by evidence.
The problem with this argument is that no-one really knows what the core numbers, as opposed to the nominal numbers, were say 50 years ago. What we do know is that, in the early 20th century, our 'Christian nation' had a pretty low level of church attendance (see the records for the 1904 Revival in Wales, for instance - one book I read some years ago suggested an attendance rate of 1 in 10 was 'good'. (I'll try to find it again - if its still in the library at church). The numbers actively involved in religion don't always correlate with those attending places of worship, at both extremes. For instance, by the end of the 70s, the number of Christians in Nepal was in the region of 5000, with about half of these living in remote villages and with no other Christians in the village. This meant that they were Christians who were not attending a place of worship as we understand the term.
Similarly, if we look at UK churches of the same era, many would have said that perhaps half their attendees were there because their families had been attending for generations and it was socially acceptable for them to do so. We now have the interesting anomaly that some parents attend church purely to establish their credentials prior to getting their chlid(ren) into a faith school, because of the high reputation of such schools. It is no different, really, to parents who seek to have an address in the catchment area of a high reputation state school (primary especially) only then to 'move out of' (if they ever really moved into) the area once they have acheived the aim of getting their child into that school.
The other thing is that attendance doesn't necessarily equate to allegiance to a faith. At the church we attend, I would suggest that 5-10% of the regular Sunday attendees (~350) are those who are looking at the faith and seeing whether it has anything for them. There is also approaching a 15% group of the membership who never attend church, because they are housebound and without any means of getting to the church or who work away from the locality temporarily. (By the way, having been on the church leadership until last April - these are rounded figures that we were given about a year ago)
-
Revivals soon fade and die. Look how many Welsh chapels are used for other purposes now, many have been converted into homes.
-
The problem with this argument is that no-one really knows what the core numbers, as opposed to the nominal numbers, were say 50 years ago. What we do know is that, in the early 20th century, our 'Christian nation' had a pretty low level of church attendance (see the records for the 1904 Revival in Wales, for instance - one book I read some years ago suggested an attendance rate of 1 in 10 was 'good'. (I'll try to find it again - if its still in the library at church). The numbers actively involved in religion don't always correlate with those attending places of worship, at both extremes. For instance, by the end of the 70s, the number of Christians in Nepal was in the region of 5000, with about half of these living in remote villages and with no other Christians in the village. This meant that they were Christians who were not attending a place of worship as we understand the term.
Similarly, if we look at UK churches of the same era, many would have said that perhaps half their attendees were there because their families had been attending for generations and it was socially acceptable for them to do so. We now have the interesting anomaly that some parents attend church purely to establish their credentials prior to getting their chlid(ren) into a faith school, because of the high reputation of such schools. It is no different, really, to parents who seek to have an address in the catchment area of a high reputation state school (primary especially) only then to 'move out of' (if they ever really moved into) the area once they have acheived the aim of getting their child into that school.
The other thing is that attendance doesn't necessarily equate to allegiance to a faith. At the church we attend, I would suggest that 5-10% of the regular Sunday attendees (~350) are those who are looking at the faith and seeing whether it has anything for them. There is also approaching a 15% group of the membership who never attend church, because they are housebound and without any means of getting to the church or who work away from the locality temporarily. (By the way, having been on the church leadership until last April - these are rounded figures that we were given about a year ago)
So in other words there's a lot fewer of you religiosos now days, why not say it Hope? No need to nibble around the edges.
ippy
-
You know ippy, I was just thinking the same thing - that's a lot of words to waste instead of just saying "Yeah ... people generally just don't believe this stuff any more."
-
I couldn't get into the video in the op.
However I did look this up, it appears that the parents of the baby girl with the tumour believe that the Pope's kiss facilitated some type of miracle. The Pope certainly hasn't made any claims and is probably embarrassed by the suggestion.
People with seriously ill children often clutch at straws and take comfort from all sorts, we can't judge them, it's very, very sad; at the same time we really shouldn't make it sound as though the Church has made official claims.
I do wonder how the little girl is now, if she is progressing well and what medical treatment she has had which might have affected the size of the tumour. We may never hear any more about her.