Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[Andy]

As far as I'm aware, he means it as blue stated - PN is the position that nature is all there is and can be. He believes it is unfalsifiable whilst believing it is false. Go figure.

[jeremyp]

Firstly MN doesn't support Ontological naturalism.

Nobody gives a fuck.

There is a claim made by Hope that there is something else beside the natural. He also claims to have a method of determining whether these "supernatural" phenomena. The focus of this thread is what the hell is that method. Please try to stay on topic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

It would be interesting to get Vlad to spell out what he does mean by 'naturalism', although of course, he would inevitably reverse that, and start saying, no, what do you mean by it?  OK, not interesting.

Vlad doesn't answer questions. He demands that other answer his questions, but he never ever, ever, ever answers questions put to him.

It's one of the characteristics of a troll. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

As far as I'm aware, he means it as blue stated - PN is the position that nature is all there is and can be. He believes it is unfalsifiable whilst believing it is false. Go figure.

Far be it from me to defend the king of pantsonfire-ism, but I suspect his response would be not that it's false, but rather that the claim (ie, his personal reinvention of the word "naturalism") is unwarranted because you cannot eliminate the posibility of an unknown unknown - eg, the "supernatural".

The big cheat he builds on his straw man is then to imply that, because anything supernatural might be, therefore it is - so he's free to populate that space with any un-defined, un-argued and un-evidenced "somethings" that happen to take his fancy.

It's desperate stuff I know, but once you strip away the polysyllabic terms he doesn't understand ("ontology" being the latest one to fall victim to the Vlad comprehension mangleometer) there it is nonetheless.

[Andy]

Andy,

Far be it from me to defend the king of pantsonfire-ism, but I suspect his response would be not that it's false, but rather that the claim (ie, his personal reinvention of the word "naturalism") is unwarranted because you cannot eliminate the posibility of an unknown unknown - eg, the "supernatural".

The big cheat he builds on his straw man is then to imply that, because anything supernatural might be, therefore it is - so he's free to populate that space with any un-defined, un-argued and un-evidenced "somethings" that happen to take his fancy.

It's desperate stuff I know, but once you strip away the polysyllabic terms he doesn't understand ("ontology" being the latest one to fall victim to the Vlad comprehension mangleometer) there it is nonetheless.

He believes there is more than just the natural, ie the supernatural, so by definition he believes "naturalism" is false.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

He believes there is more than just the natural, ie the supernatural, so by definition he believes "naturalism" is false.

Ah but now you're straying into That Place Which Vlad Shall Never Dare To Enter - ie, an argument for what he believes. Yes (so far as anyone can tell) he does believe in the supernatural, but he'll only ever confine himself here to trying to pick holes in the arguments he doesn't like - albeit by lying about them. The recent exchanges here are a good example of that.

Outside of this conversation though, yes that's right - he must necessarily think his straw man version of naturalism is false because he believes in something that contradicts it.   

[OH MY WORLD!]

Wow, you godless are sure puffed up at Hope and Vlad. But anyways, I'm still waiting for one of you, extraterrestrial believing godless atheists, to produce a Klingon. A microbe, a limb, a wingnut from a saucer will do. Don't pollute your science with your optimism. I heard the Hubble is being replaced with a new and improved eye in space for finding Spock's daddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZV6fsotYo

[ippy]

Wow, you godless are sure puffed up at Hope and Vlad. But anyways, I'm still waiting for one of you, extraterrestrial believing godless atheists, to produce a Klingon. A microbe, a limb, a wingnut from a saucer will do. Don't pollute your science with your optimism. I heard the Hubble is being replaced with a new and improved eye in space for finding Spock's daddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZV6fsotYo

This post of yours Woody, d'you think you could give it another go, only in English?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says Vlad as he dashes to the door marked 'Get out of here quick and hope nobody notices you've gone'!

Too late old chap, since some of us are awaiting your answer to Andy's question which is, in case you forget;
 

Technically ontological naturalism cannot be falsified, right?, which leads me once again to wonder why people appeal to science for some kind of support for it.

If you are now not naturalistic believers like Andy claims not to be then I must be getting through to you guys.

Andy wonders why I consider it not actually to be correct, I have given two reasons and my experience of God which has echoes in many others reducing the likelihood of hallucination ( which has a vastly different epidemiology anyway) and for which there is no current adequate alternative explanation within science or even the great Dawkinso himself since the greatest antitheist who has ever been* is not completely sure god doesn't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Andy,

You need to watch Chummy here because - along with various other terms he abuses ("scientism", "category error" etc) he plays fast and loose with the word "naturalism" in order to set up the straw man he wants to critique. Most if not all are content to take its standard meaning of, "the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and verifiable"

Give a reference where this can be found then Hillside.....put your money where your mouth is.

Youre giving naturalism a folksy, charm offensive,sentimental spin......almost political in it's appeal.
I have to hand it to you, politics is widely seen as the preserve of c**** but on this board you have turned it into seeming respectable sagacity..........maybe you can polish a turd.

[Andy]

Technically ontological naturalism cannot be falsified, right?, which leads me once again to wonder why people appeal to science for some kind of support for it.

If you are now not naturalistic believers like Andy claims not to be then I must be getting through to you guys.

Andy wonders why I consider it not actually to be correct, I have given two reasons and my experience of God which has echoes in many others reducing the likelihood of hallucination ( which has a vastly different epidemiology anyway) and for which there is no current adequate alternative explanation within science or even the great Dawkinso himself since the greatest antitheist who has ever been* is not completely sure god doesn't exist.

In short, a game of spot the glaring contradiction - listen while Vlad tells you it's unfalsifiable while giving his reasons as to why he thinks it's false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In short, a game of spot the glaring contradiction - listen while Vlad tells you it's unfalsifiable while giving his reasons as to why he thinks it's false.

Yes in scientific terms it is unfalsifiable. But unless you are a scientific realist reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.

[Gordon]

Yes in scientific terms it is unfalsifiable. But unless you are a scientific realist reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.

The give us some examples of this unrealist reality, which is clearly an oxymoron anywhere outwith the 'mind of Vlad' (which is a great title for a mid-1960's Hammer horror).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The give us some examples of this unrealist reality, which is clearly an oxymoron anywhere outwith the 'mind of Vlad' (which is a great title for a mid-1960's Hammer horror).

Sorry, I don't know what you are getting at here.

[Andy]

Yes in scientific terms it is unfalsifiable. But unless you are a scientific realist reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.

*Drumroll for the method that can falsify PN*

[Gordon]

Sorry, I don't know what you are getting at here.

You said that;

unless you are a scientific realist reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.

So, since you seem to think that 'reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.', and since as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that naturalism as assumed by use of the scientific method is inadequate, and that there is 'something else', then an example of 'something else' would be helpful - along with a description of a contrasting method: an 'unscientific non-naturalistic method', for want of a better term.

If you can provide this information you'll have falsified PN, so please don't keep us (or the Nobel prize committee) hanging on for clarification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said that;
So, since you seem to think that 'reality is wider than what science can handle. In terms of both content and scope.', and since as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that naturalism as assumed by use of the scientific method is inadequate

Stop right there.  ''naturalism as assumed by the use of the scientific method''?

Naturalism is an ontology

Science is a method.

An ultimate Gordonian conflation gambit.

[Gordon]

Stop right there.  ''naturalism as assumed by the use of the scientific method''?

Naturalism is an ontology

Science is a method.

An ultimate Gordonian conflation gambit.

So, in order to correct my confusion perhaps you'd unpack your 'naturalism is an ontology' statement, just so that I understand your thoughts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

So, in order to correct my confusion perhaps you'd unpack your 'naturalism is an ontology' statement, just so that I understand your thoughts.

Relax, you're fine - science takes naturalism (in the sense that the natural is all there is) as a working assumption because natural phenomena are all that the tools of science can access and investigate. The switcherooo he's attempting is to conflate the working assumption version with an absolutist epistemic version - ie, the natural is necessarily all there is - so as to create a straw man he can dismiss.

I suppose that if you looked hard enough you might eventually find someone who does argue for the absolutist version, but they're few and far between I'd have thought for the fairly obvious reason that you cannot eliminate the possibility of unknown unknowns, however unlikely.

Of course none of this has anything whatever to say to whether there actually is a supernatural, let alone to how it might be populated - ie, with gods, leprechauns or the man on the moon for that matter - so all he has is an "anything might be", with which no-one disagrees in any case. 

 

 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Nobody gives a fuck.

There is a claim made by Hope that there is something else beside the natural. He also claims to have a method of determining whether these "supernatural" phenomena. The focus of this thread is what the hell is that method. Please try to stay on topic.

Frustrating isn't it.

It's a simple request to a very clear claim that Hope Made.

He seems to have disappeared though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gordon,

Relax, you're fine - science takes naturalism (in the sense that the natural is all there is) as a working assumption because natural phenomena are all that the tools of science can access and investigate. The switcherooo he's attempting is to conflate the working assumption version with an absolutist epistemic version - ie, the natural is necessarily all there is - so as to create a straw man he can dismiss.

I suppose that if you looked hard enough you might eventually find someone who does argue for the absolutist version, but they're few and far between I'd have thought for the fairly obvious reason that you cannot eliminate the possibility of unknown unknowns, however unlikely.

Of course none of this has anything whatever to say to whether there actually is a supernatural, let alone to how it might be populated - ie, with gods, leprechauns or the man on the moon for that matter - so all he has is an "anything might be", with which no-one disagrees in any case.

Completely wrong
An assumption of ontological naturalism is not necessary for science.
Another epic fail.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Completely wrong
An assumption of ontological naturalism is not necessary for science.
Another epic fail.

What on earth are you on about?

The topic of the thread is very simple. A claim has been made that there are "non naturalistic" aspects of life. The question asked is:

Can we have some examples of non-naturalistic aspects of life?

How do we know they are non naturalistic i.e. what methodology should we use?

It really is very simple

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth are you on about?

The topic of the thread is very simple. A claim has been made that there are "non naturalistic" aspects of life. The question asked is:

Can we have some examples of non-naturalistic aspects of life?

How do we know they are non naturalistic i.e. what methodology should we use?

It really is very simple

Experience of the supernatural would do it.
Naturalism is of course an ontology. I'm not sure we can assume naturalism as you seem to.

Note experience of something is not the analysis of something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

What on earth are you on about?

The topic of the thread is very simple. A claim has been made that there are "non naturalistic" aspects of life. The question asked is:

Can we have some examples of non-naturalistic aspects of life?

How do we know they are non naturalistic i.e. what methodology should we use?

It really is very simple

Welcome. Indeed it is a simple question. As a newbie here I should warn you though that I've asked Vlad the same thing perhaps hundreds of times and he never, ever, ever, ever, ever answers (though he does demand that others answer his questions).

Instead he endlessly posts straw man arguments and then becomes so invested in them that he can't back out - as here with this relentless lying about science and naturalism.

[Shaker]

Experience of the supernatural would do it.

So let's see some examples of experience of the supernatural accompanied by the methodology which confirms that said experiences are indeed ones of the supernatural.