Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.livescience.com/what-is-occams-razor

Nice bit of googling NS.

So one pop-science article written by a freelance science writer (no idea whether this guy has ever actually been a professional scientific researcher) trumps 35 years of experience in conducting both personal scientific research at an internationally-recognised level, plus also having lead faculty-level research programmes in science at one of the UK's leading research intensive universities.

Oh and by the way the article largely backs up my view - i.e. in actually scientific research tends to lead to simplification and over-generalisation, but in engineering design (whether physical products or computer engineering) can be a useful rule of thumb. Although even within engineering design (I spent a few years teaching this) it is never mentioned as such.

Hmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice bit of googling NS.

So one pop-science article written by a freelance science writer (no idea whether this guy has ever actually been a professional scientific researcher) trumps 35 years of experience in conducting both personal scientific research at an internationally-recognised level, plus also having lead faculty-level research programmes in science at one of the UK's leading research intensive universities.

Oh and by the way the article largely backs up my view - i.e. in actually scientific research tends to lead to simplification and over-generalisation, but in engineering design (whether physical products or computer engineering) can be a useful rule of thumb. Although even within engineering design (I spent a few years teaching this) it is never mentioned as such.

Hmmm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[Udayana]

See above - I've never known Occam to be a component of scientific investigation - and I'm a professional scientist.

You don't need it in science .. Popper's falsifiability test is enough to weed out unnecessary constructs.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

So if Occam is so important in scientific research, how come in over 35 years in scientific research I have never heard my scientific community mention it once.

Bottom line - it is not a feature of scientific research - it is a philosophical concept.

And Udyama is correct, Popper and the development of robustly testable hypotheses achieve a similar result of weeding out unnecessary elements without reliance on Occam, which is a rather simplistic concept.

[Nearly Sane]

So if Occam is so important in scientific research, how come in over 35 years in scientific research I have never heard my scientific community mention it once.

Bottom line - it is not a feature of scientific research - it is a philosophical concept.

And Udyama is correct, Popper and the development of robustly testable hypotheses achieve a similar result of weeding out unnecessary elements without reliance on Occam, which is a rather simplistic concept.

Who said it was 'so important'? I simply noted that there was a scientific sense as is covered in reasonable detail in the wiki link. Your ignorance of it is only evidence of your ignorance.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who said it was 'so important'? I simply noted that there was a scientific sense as is covered in reasonable detail in the wiki link.

Not really - if scientists don't consider it whatsoever during their scientific endeavours, which is my professional experience, then it isn't relevant to science, regardless of what your pop-science and wiki articles might say.

Sometimes NS, you just might want to recognise that some people on here actually have longstanding professional experience in some matters, and just might know better how things actually happen than some armchair warrior.

Your ignorance of it is only evidence of your ignorance.

Who is likely to be more ignorant of how scientific research works NS - a professional scientific researcher with 35 years experience of conducting high level scientific research and also experience of running faculty-level scientific programmes involving science as diverse as the behaviour of bees, string theory planetary discovery, medical genomics, machine learning etc, etc ...

Or you

[Nearly Sane]

Not really - if scientists don't consider it whatsoever during their scientific endeavours, which is my professional experience, then it isn't relevant to science, regardless of what your pop-science and wiki articles might say.

Sometimes NS, you just might want to recognise that some people on here actually have longstanding professional experience in some matters, and just might know better how things actually happen than some armchair warrior.
Who is likely to be more ignorant of how scientific research works NS - a professional scientific researcher with 35 years experience of conducting high level scientific research and also experience of running faculty-level scientific programmes involving science as diverse as the behaviour of bees, string theory planetary discovery, medical genomics, machine learning etc, etc ...

Or you

Did you have to have surgery to allow you to puff smoke up your own arse, or was it a natural talent?

[Udayana]

  Actually can't think of any scientist using any philosophy in their research.

This article is a good read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-idea-that-a-scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth/

The physicist Paul Dirac was right when he said, "Philosophy will never lead to important discoveries. It is just a way of talking about discoveries which have already been made.

[Nearly Sane]

  Actually can't think of any scientist using any philosophy in their research.

This article is a good read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-idea-that-a-scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth/

Science is a philosophical position.

[Nearly Sane]

Science is a philosophical position.

To be fair, I mostly agree with the article.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you have to have surgery to allow you to puff smoke up your own arse, or was it a natural talent?

Yawn.

But if I wanted to know something about surgery I might consider that someone with 35 years of professional experience as ... err ... a surgeon would be a better bet than an armchair google whose experience of performing survey is exactly zero.

But I guess in your bizarre world those two would be equivalent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Yes you did make a mistake (the “lying” part relates to your quote mining in a subsequent Reply) and I explained to you very clearly why you’d made you’d made a mistake. If you think that just ignoring that explanation corrects your mistake then you're mistaken about that too.

Yes, when you’re having rings run around you it probably is best for you just to run away. It’s still the case though that the rebuttal you’ve run away from is a rebuttal.   

I didn’t. What I actually said was that I’ve never claimed to be certain about anything – that’s not to say though that the arguments that falsify you aren’t sound.

Not running away - simply pointing out that as we are never going to agree on this, we're both wasting our time repeating our different opinions over and over again ad nauseum.

Your assertions and assumptions about what I said are still incorrect BHS for the reasons I have already given you. Therefore any arguments based on your incorrect assertions and assumptions aren't sound. Glad to see you are uncertain if your arguments are sound - given you said you have not expressed certainty.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Yes you did. Why bother lying about that when it’s so readily checked? In Reply #45948 you said:
 (emphasis added).

In Reply #45989 though you edited that to:
 etc.

Notice here that after the “outside of science” you removed the qualifier “outside…the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with...” etc. The difference between “outside science” and “outside the “various currently known known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with…” etc makes all the difference to the sense (which fails in either iteration in any case for the reasons I’ve given you and you just ignore).

No it doesn't make any difference. The rules of the natural world that science has come up with refers to the rules of the scientific method. The explanations of the natural world are derived from following those methods. The scientific method is the way of acquiring knowledge about natural phenomena by observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding. It involves applying skepticism, induction, deduction, and statistics to confirm, reject, or modify the hypotheses based on the experimental results. Any concepts that this method cannot be applied to are outside science - such as gods and their judgement of people after death, and subsequent accountability. Hence these concepts are described as supernatural.

No, you are.

First, which version are you attempting here now: “outside science” (ie, your edited version) or “outside science as it currently is” (ie, your original version)?

Second, in either case axiomatically concepts of anything that are posited outwith the methods and tools of science cannot be investigated by the methods and tools of science. The problem though is that – currently at least – they’re beyond the scope of any other means of investigation too. Epistemically they’re just white noise.     
 

Why not – it’s a simple enough point I’d have thought? You made the mistake of conflating the character of a phenomenon (natural/supernatural) with the state of knowledge about that phenomenon. If we do follow your “reasoning” (such as it is) here though, then somehow our (or any other species’) state of knowledge magically transforms the character of the phenomenon itself. I have no idea how you’d think that would work – after all lightning wasn’t somehow supernatural before science understood it for example – but these are the nonsenses your position leads you to whether or not you keep ignoring those nonsenses.       

Incorrect - the supernatural is an adjective given to phenomena such as gods etc etc, which can't be investigated or explained using the rules of science, which was the point I was making originally, and which is supported by the dictionary link I gave.

When you say the supernatural is beyond the scope of any other means of investigation, I am curious to know what you mean by other means of investigation? Do you mean subjective investigation  - e.g. meditation, trances, inward mental focus? How would you determine what it is possible to investigate subjectively and what is experienced as reality inside someone's else's mind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Not running away - simply pointing out that as we are never going to agree on this so we're both wasting our time repeating our different opinions over and over again ad nauseum.

You told us that “supernatural” meant one thing, then edited it to claim you’d said it meant something else. I copied and pasted your relevant quotes (ie, pre- and post-edit) about this so there’s no doubt about that, and our opinions on it are neither here nor here.

Your assertions and assumptions about what I said are still incorrect BHS for the reasons I have already given you.

I didn’t assert them – I cited and copied them back to you.

Therefore…

…very funny.

… any arguments based on your incorrect assertions and assumptions aren't sound.

They’re not incorrect – you said them, not me. The problems their consequences give you (you believe a god/angel are “real”, but not apparently real enough to justify the belief that you hold anyway) on the other hand you just deny as existing.

Glad to see you are uncertain if your arguments are sound - given you said you have not expressed certainty.

Lying again doesn’t help you here. Here’s what I actually said:

I didn’t. What I actually said was that I’ve never claimed to be certain about anything – that’s not to say though that the arguments that falsify you aren’t sound.

Reply #45997

Can you see where you sent wrong there? Necessary non-certainty is an epistemic point – certainty isn’t a logically sustainable position about anything. That doesn’t mean though that we cannot argue that the computer in front of me exists, that Paris is the capital of France, and that some arguments are sound.   

Look, you seem to think yourself to be capable of reasoned thinking here but your behaviour paints you much closer to a Vlad who knows where to put apostrophes. This should trouble you, but it seems not to.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not really - if scientists don't consider it whatsoever during their scientific endeavours, which is my professional experience, then it isn't relevant to science, regardless of what your pop-science and wiki articles might say.

Sometimes NS, you just might want to recognise that some people on here actually have longstanding professional experience in some matters, and just might know better how things actually happen than some armchair warrior.
Who is likely to be more ignorant of how scientific research works NS - a professional scientific researcher with 35 years experience of conducting high level scientific research and also experience of running faculty-level scientific programmes involving science as diverse as the behaviour of bees, string theory planetary discovery, medical genomics, machine learning etc, etc ...

Or you

Given the huge amount of difference of opinion among scientists and how they keep getting things wrong (as is normal in science), why would the opinion of one person on an anonymous message board who claims to be "a professional, scientific researcher with 35 years experience of high level scientific research etc etc" be the only opinion worth considering?

Personally I think in order to determine who is more likely to be ignorant, we would first need proof that you are any of the things you claim you are. Without that proof, it's impossible to determine between 2 anonymous forum posters, which one of them is more likely to be more ignorant. We don't have any stats to calculate a probability.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

You told us that “supernatural” meant one thing, then edited it to claim you’d said it meant something else. I copied and pasted your relevant quotes (ie, pre- and post-edit) about this so there’s no doubt about that, and our opinions on it are neither here nor here.

I didn’t assert them – I cited and copied them back to you.

…very funny.

They’re not incorrect – you said them, not me. The problems their consequences give you (you believe a god/angel are “real”, but not apparently real enough to justify the belief that you hold anyway) on the other hand you just deny as existing.

Lying again doesn’t help you here. Here’s what I actually said:

Reply #45997

Can you see where you sent wrong there? Necessary non-certainty is an epistemic point – certainty isn’t a logically sustainable position about anything. That doesn’t mean though that we cannot argue that the computer in front of me exists, that Paris is the capital of France, and that some arguments are sound.   

Look, you seem to think yourself to be capable of reasoned thinking here but your behaviour paints you much closer to a Vlad who knows where to put apostrophes. This should trouble you, but it seems not to.

Again, your opinions here are incorrect for the reasons I have already given you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But those ideas and thoughts aren't themselves supernatural - all they do is posit the notion of something that is supernatural. The ideas, thoughts etc are entirely grounded in the natural and governed by natural laws.

It really isn't a difficult concept - try this as an analogy.

I know it's not difficult, hence I was referring to the subject of the ideas as being supernatural. Not sure why you are finding that so hard to grasp.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the huge amount of difference of opinion among scientists and how they keep getting things wrong (as is normal in science), why would the opinion of one person on an anonymous message board who claims to be "a professional, scientific researcher with 35 years experience of high level scientific research etc etc" be the only opinion worth considering?

That's right VG - don't need no experts. You've outed yourself as Gove (I think for at least the second time).

Sure science gets stuff wrong at times, but the beauty of science is it is inherently self-correcting as it never assumes that the current 'best explanation' is the final 'best explanation'. But I'd also argue that in comparison with most alternatives science has an exceptionally high hit rate (noting that that involves its self correction) - just think of all the things we do, take for granted etc that are entirely based on the scientific method.

But actually I wasn't talking about 'science' per se, but the approach of scientists. And yes VG, someone who has 35 years experience embedded in the scientific community is in a rather better position to talk about whether that scientific community uses, discusses, recognises as important, Occam, than someone who has probably never had a professional discussion (whether via publications, presentations, general discussions over a beer) with a scientist in their lives.

But hey, ho - who needs experts eh

[ProfessorDavey]

... who claims to be "a professional, scientific researcher with 35 years experience of high level scientific research etc etc"

Yawn - back onto to the prove yourself shtick eh VG. A bit sad, I feel. Why not actually play the ball, not the player.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know it's not difficult, hence I was referring to the subject of the ideas as being supernatural. Not sure why you are finding that so hard to grasp.

Is a ghost story actually supernatural or natural.

It may posit the supernatural as part of the story, but it is, in itself entirely grounded in natural laws.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually we were discussing things that are outside of natural laws (i.e. supernatural) but nonetheless let's dissemble your argument bit by bit.

Science doesn't always detect things directly - in fact it is extremely common for science to determine the existence of something not through direct observation but by the effect that entity has on something else which science can detect. So a couple of example - long before we had scientific measurement systems able to actually detect the outer planets astronomers predicted their presence due to their effect on the orbiting of nearer planets.

Also a colleague of mine was part of a team that was the first to detect an earth-like planet orbiting another star. Did they detect it directly. Nope, we don't really have the equipment to do this. So how did they know it existed? Well because of minute reductions in the light they could capture from the star it orbited as it passed in front of the star.

So why is this relevant. Well it is possible there might be a supernatural entity that exists entirely separately from our universe, outside our natural laws and never interacts in any manner with our universe and natural laws. But that entity would be completely indistinguishable from something which did not exist. But that isn't how gods are described - they always interact with our universe, our natural laws in some respect - for example in creation, or judgement, or responding to prayer etc. Point is that as soon as that entity interacts with our universe and our natural laws it renders itself detectable by the scientific method. We may not be able to detect it directly but can infer its presence by the effect it has on things we can detect - just like my colleagues planet.

So any interventionist god renders itself able to be investigated by science.
Note my emphasis.

For there to be something after there must be time and time is fundamentally embedded within the natural laws of our universe. So if there is time then we are dealing with the natural, not the supernatural.

Even if there is an interventionist god or supernatural entity, what method would you use to establish that the point of intervention had a supernatural source? You might be able to detect the effect of the intervention but how would you detect the source?

[ProfessorDavey]

Personally I think in order to determine who is more likely to be ignorant, we would first need proof that you are any of the things you claim you are.

And if you were convinced (i.e. that I have over 35 years experience as a professional scientific researcher) - would you accept that I have a better expert insight into scientific research and the research community than the average armchair googler?

Simple question.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn.

But if I wanted to know something about surgery I might consider that someone with 35 years of professional experience as ... err ... a surgeon would be a better bet than an armchair google whose experience of performing survey is exactly zero.

But I guess in your bizarre world those two would be equivalent.

This is like your 'so important' comment. Why do you think making stuff up is ok?

[Nearly Sane]

And if you were convinced (i.e. that I have over 35 years experience as a professional scientific researcher) - would you accept that I have a better expert insight into scientific research and the research community than the average armchair googler?

Simple question.

Is the wiki entry wrong?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is a ghost story actually supernatural or natural.

It may posit the supernatural as part of the story, but it is, in itself entirely grounded in natural laws.

The ghost is the subject - the ghost is the supernatural part. Writing a story about a ghost does not give any indication of whether the author is claiming that ghosts or anything that can be described as supernatural actually exist. Similarly, a dictionary definition of "ghosts" does not indicate that ghosts exist.