Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Dear Hope,

I have been following this forum for some time but have never registered to post as I feel I would rarely have the opportunity to reply to messages addressed to me.

However, you have driven me to it!

You frequently allude to other approaches to understanding reality apart from science. A recent example had been on the Alpha topic thread. You have said (sorry for the poor quality quoting as I don't yet know how to do it properly:

• "They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have  - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part."
  
  "Science works, to a large extent.  Few, if any, Christians would disagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality"[/i][/u][/b]

Several posters have asked you to provide some details as to how we might know about this alternative approach but without answer.

Please, please please could you do so as I can't stand the suspense anymore. Just some basic outline as to go about discerning things that are likely true from things that are likely false.

Ta

[SqueakyVoice]

Hello Stephen (& welcome),

I'm pretty sure you'll soon find out that your post is a triumph of Hope over expectation...

[Rhiannon]

A reply will put many of us out of our misery.

[Gordon]

We'll form an orderly queue behind you, Stephen.

[jeremyp]

Welcome to delurking.

I'm afraid you are going to be out of luck. Your request has been made many times over the years and Hope has always ignored it. There's a good reason why he has always ignored it and that reason is that there is no approach for understanding reality apart from science.

I would go as far as saying that there can be no other approach for understanding reality. The fundamental point of science is to test your ideas to see if they conform to reality. Hope thinks science is some mysterious complex process carried out by people in white coats in laboratories. It's not (or at least not necessarily). Any approach to understanding reality must include the step of checking your ideas against reality and if your approach includes that step, it is science.

[Bubbles]

A new poster, there's Hope for us yet then ?

 

[Brownie]

Having read the post before last I have to confess I always thought Hope was a 'she'.

No other comments but I do hope you receive an answer Stephen.

[Hope]

Please, please please could you do so as I can't stand the suspense anymore. Just some basic outline as to go about discerning things that are likely true from things that are likely false.

Ta

Hi Stephen, as I've pointed out before - several times - the issue is that as far as certain people are concerned the only valid evidence is that which is moderated by the scientific method.  As you will appreciate, since this method relies solely on the naturalistic, any non-naturalistic evidence is necessarily disallowed by such people.  Therefore experience is irrelevant - even though experience is quite an important factor in getting jobs, bringing children up safely, ... 

However

I have been trying to decide how best to introduce the following for a few days (when I haven't been coughing my guts up and suffering from nasal drip syndrome).

In the past, we have been told here that sceince doesn't deal in right and wrong - yet that is a major part of human life.  There are, for instance, the societal rules and regulalations that exist in any society.  If sceince doesn't deal with right and wrong, where does the impetus for deciding what is right and what is wrong come from?  It clearly can't be a merely naturalistic source, otherwise science would always be able to give imput.  So, let's take a couple of examples.  Where, if at all, is the naturalistic reasoning behind the idea that one shouldn't lie? or kill (after all most of animal world kill to survive and we don't seem to regard this as unacceptable).  On the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of speeding.  There was scientific evidence used to install the current 70mph limit here in the UK - though I'm told that modern research has largely refuted that evidence.

Obviously, it is very hard to provide a naturalistically valid methodology for parts of our lives that go beyond the natural - but then of course even the die-hard scientific naturalists here turn to 'magic' when they invoke 'spontaneous healing' - something that doesn't fit in the scientific lexicon at all.  They have no answer to the situation so make things up.

[Shaker]

Welcome Stephen - it's great to see a new poster at last. (Nearly said member there ...). I do hope that having been provoked into posting by Hope (it comes to us all, believe you me) you'll stick around and enjoy the blandishments of R & E.

[Hope]

A reply will put many of us out of our misery.

Well, if you and others were to read my and others' posts as carefully as you claim to do, you will notice that I have made no dramatically new comments here - just pulled them together in to a single post.

[BeRational]

Hi Stephen, as I've pointed out before - several times - the issue is that as far as certain people are concerned the only valid evidence is that which is moderated by the scientific method.  As you will appreciate, since this method relies solely on the naturalistic, any non-naturalistic evidence is necessarily disallowed by such people.  Therefore experience is irrelevant - even though experience is quite an important factor in getting jobs, bringing children up safely, ... 

However

I have been trying to decide how best to introduce the following for a few days (when I haven't been coughing my guts up and suffering from nasal drip syndrome).

In the past, we have been told here that sceince doesn't deal in right and wrong - yet that is a major part of human life.  There are, for instance, the societal rules and regulalations that exist in any society.  If sceince doesn't deal with right and wrong, where does the impetus for deciding what is right and what is wrong come from?  It clearly can't be a merely naturalistic source, otherwise science would always be able to give imput.  So, let's take a couple of examples.  Where, if at all, is the naturalistic reasoning behind the idea that one shouldn't lie? or kill (after all most of animal world kill to survive and we don't seem to regard this as unacceptable).  On the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of speeding.  There was scientific evidence used to install the current 70mph limit here in the UK - though I'm told that modern research has largely refuted that evidence.

Obviously, it is very hard to provide a naturalistically valid methodology for parts of our lives that go beyond the natural - but then of course even the die-hard scientific naturalists here turn to 'magic' when they invoke 'spontaneous healing' - something that doesn't fit in the scientific lexicon at all.  They have no answer to the situation so make things up.

The universe does not care if you lie, or kill, or steal.

Human groups do.

The 'rules' come from  groups trying to establish a way of living together that benefits all.
We are stronger as a group than individuals, and we need rules to live in large groups.

That's all there is to it.

[Gordon]

As you will appreciate, since this method relies solely on the naturalistic, any non-naturalistic evidence is necessarily disallowed by such people.

How about providing some then.

Therefore experience is irrelevant - even though experience is quite an important factor in getting jobs, bringing children up safely, ...

In what way is experience not naturalistic?  Or, alternatively, what constitutes a non-naturalistic experience?
 

If sceince doesn't deal with right and wrong, where does the impetus for deciding what is right and what is wrong come from?

The thing between your ears.

It clearly can't be a merely naturalistic source, otherwise science would always be able to give imput.

Science does, since biology is involved.

So, let's take a couple of examples.  Where, if at all, is the naturalistic reasoning behind the idea that one shouldn't lie or kill...

Using you brain to consider the consequences if routine lying or killing were acceptable.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of speeding.  There was scientific evidence used to install the current 70mph limit here in the UK - though I'm told that modern research has largely refuted that evidence.

That would be because when it comes to social regulations these involve people thinking and reviewing their decisions: brains again.

Obviously, it is very hard to provide a naturalistically valid methodology for parts of our lives that go beyond the natural

Which parts are these then?

  - but then of course even the die-hard scientific naturalists here turn to 'magic' when they invoke 'spontaneous healing' - something that doesn't fit in the scientific lexicon at all.  They have no answer to the situation so make things up.

Utter bollocks!

[Shaker]

Well, if you and others were to read my and others' posts as carefully as you claim to do, you will notice that I have made no dramatically new comments here - just pulled them together in to a single post.

I can't say I've ever seen anything even in your posts before as outstandingly stupid as trying to use speed limits as an argument for supernaturalism.

Close, but not quite.

[jeremyp]

any non-naturalistic evidence is necessarily disallowed by such people.

Please give some examples of non naturalistic evidence.

Therefore experience is irrelevant

In what way is experience not natural?

There are, for instance, the societal rules and regulalations that exist in any society.

In what way are these not natural?

If sceince doesn't deal with right and wrong, where does the impetus for deciding what is right and what is wrong come from?

That's an interesting question, but what makes you think that the answers are not natural?

but then of course even the die-hard scientific naturalists here turn to 'magic' when they invoke 'spontaneous healing' - something that doesn't fit in the scientific lexicon at all.

What are you talking about? Science has told us a lot about the way our bodies heal themselves. This "spontaneous healing" you are talking about is merely another way of saying they got better.

[Shaker]

Science has told us a lot about the way our bodies heal themselves. This "spontaneous healing" you are talking about is merely another way of saying they got better.

The particularly irksome thing about this is that the last time Hopeless was beating his chest about spontaneous healing no more than a couple of weeks ago (unsurprisingly, invoking the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) I posted a link* to a long, thorough, very clear and really rather good BBC article on the subject outlining what science already knows about SH (a surprising amount) and promising areas for future research. Hopeless either didn't read said article or read it but didn't understand it - either way he's acting as though it never existed, and is blithely boring on as though SH is some grand supernatural thing that mystifies everybody.

* Here: http://goo.gl/r4BtVP

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Hi Stephen, as I've pointed out before - several times - the issue is that as far as certain people are concerned the only valid evidence is that which is moderated by the scientific method.  As you will appreciate, since this method relies solely on the naturalistic, any non-naturalistic evidence is necessarily disallowed by such people.  Therefore experience is irrelevant - even though experience is quite an important factor in getting jobs, bringing children up safely, ... 

However

I have been trying to decide how best to introduce the following for a few days (when I haven't been coughing my guts up and suffering from nasal drip syndrome).

In the past, we have been told here that sceince doesn't deal in right and wrong - yet that is a major part of human life.  There are, for instance, the societal rules and regulalations that exist in any society.  If sceince doesn't deal with right and wrong, where does the impetus for deciding what is right and what is wrong come from?  It clearly can't be a merely naturalistic source, otherwise science would always be able to give imput.  So, let's take a couple of examples.  Where, if at all, is the naturalistic reasoning behind the idea that one shouldn't lie? or kill (after all most of animal world kill to survive and we don't seem to regard this as unacceptable).  On the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of speeding.  There was scientific evidence used to install the current 70mph limit here in the UK - though I'm told that modern research has largely refuted that evidence.

Obviously, it is very hard to provide a naturalistically valid methodology for parts of our lives that go beyond the natural - but then of course even the die-hard scientific naturalists here turn to 'magic' when they invoke 'spontaneous healing' - something that doesn't fit in the scientific lexicon at all.  They have no answer to the situation so make things up.

Thank you for getting back to me, and I hope the cold is better soon.

I'm afraid I couldn't find anything non naturalistic in your post.

Right and wrong appear to me to be value judgements about behaviours. Behaviours, attitudes and reasoning clearly have there origins in biology and this can be clearly demonstrated by downing a bottle of Whisky. Do you agree that your attitudes and behaviours would be different subsequent to this? Biology is also clearly ripe for scientific investigation.

Likewise speed limits are a compromise between getting around as quickly as possible whilst also trying to minimise accidents. I don't see anything non naturalistic about this.

Not sure I understand  your point about spontaneous healing. You have a cold at the moment. I bet you won't a year from now (well not the same one anyway). What is non naturalistic about that. If you lost a leg in an accident and it suddenly grew back you might have something  worth talking about.

I suppose a good way to proceed would be for you to give us an example of "the parts of our lives that go beyond the natural"

TTFN

Stephen

PS Thanks for the welcome messages.  I don't know how often I will be able to post but hope to give it a good shot.

[SusanDoris]

How interesting to hear that a lurker/browser of this site has decided to post; this is a very good thing of course, and I hope more do so.

Stephen, the best thing I've found is to scroll past Hope's posts and read others' answers. In this way I am compelled to read parts of Hope's posts, but it's less painful with a sensible answer immediately following!!

[Hope]

How interesting to hear that a lurker/browser of this site has decided to post; this is a very good thing of course, and I hope more do so.

Stephen, the best thing I've found is to scroll past Hope's posts and read others' answers. In this way I am compelled to read parts of Hope's posts, but it's less painful with a sensible answer immediately following!!

The problem with this, Susan is that some of those following posts misrepresent what I have written, and thence become moot posts.

[Shaker]

How interesting to hear that a lurker/browser of this site has decided to post; this is a very good thing of course, and I hope more do so.

Absolutely. I wish I'd asked Stephen how he found us.

[Gordon]

The problem with this, Susan is that some of those following posts misrepresent what I have written, and thence become moot posts.

No they don't: they point out your routine use of fallacious reasoning.

[Hope]

Right and wrong appear to me to be value judgements about behaviours. Behaviours, attitudes and reasoning clearly have there origins in biology and this can be clearly demonstrated by downing a bottle of Whisky. Do you agree that your attitudes and behaviours would be different subsequent to this? Biology is also clearly ripe for scientific investigation.

One doesn't have to down a bottle of whisky to do something 'wrong'.  One doesn't need to have had one's attitudes and behaviours modified in this way to be able to do wrong.  As for your comment that "Behaviours, attitudes and reasoning clearly have there origins in biology ..." perhaps you can provide us with evidential material to show why the law against killing someone - which exists in practically every 'corner' of the globe - is in any way related to biology.

Likewise speed limits are a compromise between getting around as quickly as possible whilst also trying to minimise accidents. I don't see anything non naturalistic about this.

Good to see you making the same mistake that others here have - taking an argument 'for' the role of science in such a process and trying to point out an error.

Not sure I understand  your point about spontaneous healing. You have a cold at the moment. I bet you won't a year from now (well not the same one anyway). What is non naturalistic about that. If you lost a leg in an accident and it suddenly grew back you might have something  worth talking about.

As far as I'm aware, no-one uses the term spontaneous healing to refer to everyday healings - such as of colds or illness caused by viruses - it is generally accepted that this is one example of how the body is designed/able to combat infection/virus attack/etc.

It tends to be used for more unexpected healing - when doctors have said that there is nothing more that they can do for a patient - such as in some cases of cancer or severe burning.  The claim that the body 'just repairs' itself after months, sometimes years of not being able to seems a bit far-fetched and unscientific.

I suppose a good way to proceed would be for you to give us an example of "the parts of our lives that go beyond the natural"

I've given this example before - emotions.  All others have managed to do is refer to the symptoms of whatever emotion they might be talking about, not the underlying processes

PS Thanks for the welcome messages.  I don't know how often I will be able to post but hope to give it a good shot.

Its good to debate with you, Stephen.  Don't worry about not being able to post regularly.

[Shaker]

As far as I'm aware, no-one uses the term spontaneous healing to refer to everyday healings - such as of colds or illness caused by viruses - it is generally accepted that this is one example of how the body is designed/able to combat infection/virus attack/etc.

It tends to be used for more unexpected healing - when doctors have said that there is nothing more that they can do for a patient - such as in some cases of cancer or severe burning. The claim that the body 'just repairs' itself after months, sometimes years of not being able to seems a bit far-fetched and unscientific.

Far from it. If you'd read the article I posted a fortnight or so ago and referred to again earlier (#14) you'd be aware that it's looking increasingly likely that there's no difference between the two - in other words, that the immune system plays a part (not 100% clear at present but under active investigation) in the spontaneous remission of some cancers just as it does for a cold or a cut finger.

That something appears to be far-fetched to someone says nothing whatever of its truth and is nothing more than the fallacy of personal incredulity - surprise surprise.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Well done, you attracted a new member to our small forum, keep up the good work.

Dear Stephen,

Welcome, I am the forums psychic, the spirits are telling me you have atheistic leanings.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

The universe does not care if you lie, or kill, or steal.

Human groups do.

The 'rules' come from  groups trying to establish a way of living together that benefits all.
We are stronger as a group than individuals, and we need rules to live in large groups.

That's all there is to it.

B R, I've had to admonish Len for taking the words out of my mouth often before I can even reach the keyboard.

You're beginning to seriously piss me off now with your consistent straight to the point/nub of almost every contribution here on the forum and you haven't even got the decency to make the odd duff post from time to time, that might make me feel better about my posts.

It's about time you did something about it_______ and an apology isn't enough.

ippy

[ippy]

The problem with this, Susan is that some of those following posts misrepresent what I have written, and thence become moot posts.

What Hope? I hope they're Not misrepresenting things in the same way that you do, are they?

ippy