Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi jj,

"...  even if science can't currently explain something that doesn't give you free reign to decide that the answer must therefore be non-naturalistic. This "reasoning" is essentially that used to explain that thunder and lightning was Thor chucking his hammer around."


I can't agree with this because, as I see it, those ancients who thought thunder and lightening was Thor chucking his hammer around were the first scientists.

What do scientists do these days?  They look at unanswered questions, they use any knowledge already gained, and they come to some sort of hypothesis.  Surely that's all those guys were doing.


That they got it wrong isn't surprising, scientists are always bringing their ideas up to date.  It is the religious of today, who seem to think bringing their ideas up to date is a big no no!

Shakes got there before me, but you cannot call the Norse the "first scientists" because they didn't employ any of the tools of science - data gathering, testing, a falsifiabilty test etc. Both may have begun with a hypothesis, but only the methods of science allow the hypothesis a higher truth probability than guessing. Hope's problem is that epistemically he's no further ahead with "God" than the Norse were with Thor - hypothesis (or "conjecture" or "guess") is the beginning and end of it, and will remain so until and unless he finally comes up with a method of some kind to dig himself out of that position.

I wouldn't hold you breath on that one though.   

[jjohnjil]

That's all very well as a hypothesis, but is it testable? And was it actually tested?

They were looking for answers to phenomena, which is what scientists do.   If I knew now no more than they knew then, I would probably come to the same conclusion. 

There was no way they could test their theories and the religious leaders wouldn't allow any change in the conclusion that godidit, as it suited their agenda too well!

[bluehillside Retd.]

JJ,

They were looking for answers to phenomena, which is what scientists do.   If I knew now no more than they knew then, I would probably come to the same conclusion. 

There was no way they could test their theories and the religious leaders wouldn't allow any change in the conclusion that godidit, as it suited their agenda too well!

They may well have been looking for explanations, but that doesn't make the Norse early scientists. The difference between science and religious beliefs is that only the former entails a method to test and verify the various hypotheses with which each begins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

JJ,

They may well have been looking for explanations, but that doesn't make the Norse early scientists. The difference between science and religious beliefs is that only the former entails a method to test and verify the various hypotheses with which each begins.

The master has returned.

Science of course is not an ontology. So why people bring it up......

[wigginhall]

But it can be the basis for an ontology, e.g. scientific realism.

[Jack Knave]

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

 

Well yes. I notice that the list of people on site includes about double of those actually posting, sometimes even more. Come out, come out wherever you are...

[Jack Knave]

What I would like to know from Hope is what form these spiritual experiences/phenomena take that need his non-scientific method.

[Jack Knave]

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).

That's not mucus its ectoplasm!!! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it can be the basis for an ontology, e.g. scientific realism.

But it isn't an ontology and scientific realism is not science.

[Jack Knave]

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

So are you going to invoke God for the reason for all these non-natural phenomena or do you propose something else?

[Jack Knave]

Hope,

Oh dear. This is just a re-statement of Vlad's "methodological materialism" mistake. "Evidence" is itself a naturalistic concept - it relies on data, testing, falsifiability etc. If you want to call something evidence then you have to play by these rules. If you want to call something else evidence though, then as ever you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method of any kind to distinguish this supposed evidence from mistake, misattribution, just guessing, the effects of a bump on the head etc.   

Not too sure I agree with your definition of evidence. What about historical evidence. Be a bit pushed to classify that as data or testable etc.

I think evidence and its quality, with regards to the world out there, is one thing, data collected by some sampling method is another.....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

Oh dear. This is just a re-statement of Vlad's "methodological materialism" mistake. "Evidence" is itself a naturalistic concept - it relies on data, testing, falsifiability etc. If you want to call something evidence then you have to play by these rules. If you want to call something else evidence though, then as ever you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method of any kind to distinguish this supposed evidence from mistake, misattribution, just guessing, the effects of a bump on the head etc.   

That is just philosophical totalitarianism Hillside.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption of ontological naturalism. Where is the Evidence for it?

So if the underlying assumption has no evidence then the assumed definition is flawed and claiming the rules as you are doing is merely like Stig of the Dump claiming the chalk pit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Jack,

Not too sure I agree with your definition of evidence. What about historical evidence. Be a bit pushed to classify that as data or testable etc.

I think evidence and its quality, with regards to the world out there, is one thing, data collected by some sampling method is another.....?

Depends what you mean "testable" etc as often there's tangible evidence of historic events - the carbon dating of fossils for example. When there are only records or stories though then we still have the tools of forensics to rely on - were the claimed events within known parameters? Were the witnesses contemporary or was the story re-told? Are there multiple sources or just one? Do the stories come from a time when magical explanations for the otherwise inexplicable were commonplace? What other explanations could there be, and how have they been eliminated? etc. None of these things necessarily deliver a knock out blow to the story, but they help build a context of credibility that allows us to take a view on their likely truthfulness or not. 

Compare that with the "I had a feeling that a god (who also happens to be the one with which I'm most familiar) paid me a visit" and the evidential difference is night and day.

[Andy]

That is just philosophical totalitarianism Hillside.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption of ontological naturalism. Where is the Evidence for it?

So if the underlying assumption has no evidence then the assumed definition is flawed and claiming the rules as you are doing is merely like Stig of the Dump claiming the chalk pit.

I've been away for a few months and you haven't moved a fucking nanometre further on from this dishonest, straw man bollocks that people here are asserting philosophical naturalism.

It's unfalsifiable (as has been said over and over) and there is no evidence for it. This is a huge kick in the pants for your proposition of the supernatural, as you can never verify it because it's verification would falsify philosophical naturalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Andy,

I've been away for a few months and you haven't moved a fucking nanometre further on from this dishonest, straw man bollocks that people here are asserting philosophical naturalism.

It's unfalsifiable (as has been said over and over) and there is no evidence for it. This is a huge kick in the pants for your proposition of the supernatural, as you can never verify it because it's verification would falsify philosophical naturalism.

Pungently but accurately put. I guess when you'e both deeply dishonest and utterly invested in a straw man all you're going to offer is endless repetition of the mistake regardless of how many times it's explained to you. It's essentially trolling, which is why I've given up responding to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've been away for a few months and you haven't moved a fucking nanometre further on from this dishonest, straw man bollocks that people here are asserting philosophical naturalism.

It's unfalsifiable (as has been said over and over) and there is no evidence for it. This is a huge kick in the pants for your proposition of the supernatural, as you can never verify it because it's verification would falsify philosophical naturalism.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

[Andy]

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

(PN = philosophical naturalism. MN = methodological naturalism)

PN is unfalsifiable. Supernatural verification would falsify PN, but that negates PN being unfalsifiable. Pick one - either concede your position has no foundation or stop shifting the burden by banging on about how MN can't falsify PN and embrace your burden by falsifying PN with supernatural verification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

(PN = philosophical naturalism. MN = methodological naturalism)

PN is unfalsifiable. Supernatural verification would falsify PN, but that negates PN being unfalsifiable. Pick one - either concede your position has no foundation or stop shifting the burden by banging on about how MN can't falsify PN and embrace your burden by falsifying PN with supernatural verification.

Whoosh!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(PN = philosophical naturalism. MN = methodological naturalism)

PN is unfalsifiable. Supernatural verification would falsify PN, but that negates PN being unfalsifiable. Pick one - either concede your position has no foundation or stop shifting the burden by banging on about how MN can't falsify PN and embrace your burden by falsifying PN with supernatural verification.

No, still not getting it. PN has a burden since it is a positive assertion. There is no question of shifting the burden on to it since it comes with one whether any other arguments have one or not.

[Andy]

No, still not getting it. PN has a burden since it is a positive assertion. There is no question of shifting the burden on to it since it comes with one whether any other arguments have one or not.

No-one is asserting PN. You are asserting the supernatural. Falsify PN by verifying your assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one is asserting PN. You are asserting the supernatural. Falsify PN by verifying your assertion.

Sorry, Hillside stated that the concept of evidence was naturalistic.

[Andy]

Sorry, Hillside stated that the concept of evidence was naturalistic.

No, he's stating that the concept of evidence is currently only applicable to the natural as no-one has established how it can make sense with regards to the supernatural.

[Shaker]

No, he's stating that the concept of evidence is currently only applicable to the natural as no-one has established how it can make sense with regards to the supernatural.

And we've not been shy in asking ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, he's stating that the concept of evidence is currently only applicable to the natural as no-one has established how it can make sense with regards to the supernatural.

I think what you mean by making sense is making it fit naturalism.
You forget that yours and Hillsides statements are ontologically loaded.

All that can be honestly and demonstrably be said is that science cannot falsify naturalism or the supernatural.

[Andy]

I think what you mean by making sense is making it fit naturalism.
You forget that yours and Hillsides statements are ontologically loaded.

All that can be honestly and demonstrably be said is that science cannot falsify naturalism or the supernatural.

No, I'm not making it fit naturalism, rather it's people such as yourself who don't make it fit with the supernatural. Once you understand that there is nothing you can't use as "evidence" for the supernatural, you may eventually twig that this renders evidence as meaningless.

I haven't, nor do I know ow of anybody else, claimed that science can falsify either. Again with the shifting. It's for you to give us a means to falsify naturalism with supernatural verification, but I'll wager I can take a longer sabattical and still get no response...