Show us the evidence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope seems to think that the definition of emotion is something separate to the signs of emotion - that there's an extra link in the chain. I don't get this at all - it seems obvious to me that emotion is inseparable from the signs of emotion, and that it makes sense to regard that as what emotion means.

That said, it's quite clear that we're only discussing this at all since Hope introduced it into the thread as as diversion from having to produce evidence of his own.

You seem to be ignoring external stimulus in causing release of chemicals.

[Shaker]

No, I think that that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand (which is itself irrelevant).

[Andy]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.

Ciao.

Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?

[Leonard James]

Go on then, what are they?  The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.

The evidence is staring you in the face! Everybody demonstrates that they feel love, hate, fear so they must exist ... what more evidence do you want.

I fear I have misunderstood the question, because the answer is so obvious.

[Alien]

Evidence has to be scientifically verifiable, which clearly theirs isn't!

No,it doesn't. Here is the OED definition of "evidence":

noun

1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
e.g. the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
e.g. without evidence, they can’t bring a charge

1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

[Alien]

Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.

I do agree with Hope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.

Ciao.

Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?

Yep.

[Andy]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.

Ciao.

Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?

Yep.

Then for all intents and purposes you agree with Shaker. See, if you actually had evidence for the supernatural then you would falsify PN in a heartbeat. Way to piss on your own bonfire, Vlad.

Now I expect that any further contribution to this thread from you will be to tell any other theists that they don't have evidence for the supernatural? It's that or just don't bother with it anymore.

[Shaker]

Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.

I do agree with Hope.

An interesting, though wholly unsurprising, dodge there. I've lost count of the number of times on the number of threads that you've been asked by a number of different posters to provide a methodology for the supernatural which you claim to believe exists (that is, both the supernatural and a methodology for being made aware of it) - requests which you've also consistently dodged.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.

Ciao.

Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?

Yep.

Then for all intents and purposes you agree with Shaker. See, if you actually had evidence for the supernatural then you would falsify PN in a heartbeat. Way to piss on your own bonfire, Vlad.

Not at all....... falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science. A philosophy is not that's why it's er, philosophy. We do not give up a philosophy just because it is unfalsifiable. We treat philosophies in a different way. The same with religion although those can overlap several domains or magisteria.

I don't know what it is about your arguments but I genuinely don't get them, where as I merely disagree or agree with others.

[jeremyp]

falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.

Wrong.  Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false.  The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested.  If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.

If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural.  In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.

Wrong.  Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false.  The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested.  If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.

If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural.  In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.

I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.

Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.

http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Go on then, what are they?  The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.

The evidence is staring you in the face! Everybody demonstrates that they feel love, hate, fear so they must exist ... what more evidence do you want.

I fear I have misunderstood the question, because the answer is so obvious.

I haven't read the whole thread but it appears from the above that you have misunderstood the question.

People assert that they feel love or hate in the same way that they assert they feel the presence of the supernatural. They or others attach labels to certain behaviours and call it love or hate but different people have different definitions of love and hate - there is no objective definition that is testable. For example indulging your child's every whim is considered to be a demonstration of love by some people or child abuse by certain psychologists.

[Andy]

falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.

Wrong.  Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false.  The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested.  If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.

If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural.  In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.

I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.

Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.

http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism

jeremyp replied well enough for me not to bother with the previous post.

Who here is thinking that 1. they are a PNist and 2. that it is falsifiable?

You're way missing the point here and run off in a completely different direction. This thread is a request for supernatural evidence, and you've indirectly said there can't be any. One of my main aims here is to try and weed out common ground, so I only see it as a positive to find some with you here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.

Wrong.  Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false.  The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested.  If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.

If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural.  In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.

I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.

Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.

http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism

jeremyp replied well enough for me not to bother with the previous post.

Who here is thinking that 1. they are a PNist and 2. that it is falsifiable?

You're way missing the point here and run off in a completely different direction. This thread is a request for supernatural evidence, and you've indirectly said there can't be any. One of my main aims here is to try and weed out common ground, so I only see it as a positive to find some with you here.

There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.

[jeremyp]

There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.

I agree, but do you believe that there can be evidence not within the definitions of methodological materialism?  If so, I'd like to see some examples of the kind of evidence you mean.

[Andy]

First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.

That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.

I agree, but do you believe that there can be evidence not within the definitions of methodological materialism?  If so, I'd like to see some examples of the kind of evidence you mean.

If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist? Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''. Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.

To get back to your being PN there are grounds and motivations of you being so. We can discuss these and then we come eventually to experience, virtue, decision and commitment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.

That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.

What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?

[Andy]

First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.

That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.

What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?

I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.

That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.

What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?

I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.

The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms. You raised the matter in the first place by claiming there was confusion between naturalism and materialism going on. The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate.

[Andy]

First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.

That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.

What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?

I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.

The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms. You raised the matter in the first place by claiming there was confusion between naturalism and materialism going on. The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate.

Then create a new thread or something if you want to make an issue of it.

[jeremyp]

If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist?

If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable.  However, PN is the parsimonious position. 

Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''.

You mean there can't be evidence outside of MM.

Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.

If it's not falsifiable, we have no means of determining if it is correct or not.  But the fact that we don't like not knowing doesn't make it any the less unfalsifiable.

[jeremyp]

The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms.

Are you in any confusion over what the deity and the afterlife is?

Show us the evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist?

If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable.  However, PN is the parsimonious position. 

Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''.

You mean there can't be evidence outside of MM.

Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.

If it's not falsifiable, we have no means of determining if it is correct or not.  But the fact that we don't like not knowing doesn't make it any the less unfalsifiable.

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.