Possibilianism

[Sriram]

Hi everything,

Here is something on 'Possibilianism' that David Eagleman, a neuroscientist,  has been proposing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism

https://www.eagleman.com/blog/why-i-am-a-possibilian

***********

Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in strong atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.

Eagleman replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to...ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now.

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

 "Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time," he said. "As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one."

The List Magazine wrote: "Googling 'possibilian', the position Eagleman invented to explain his belief system, throws up the beginnings of a worldwide movement.

***********

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

It seems a ludicrous way to describe weak atheism, and makes the usual mistake of getting agnosticism wrong - it's not a third position and a weak atheist would be an agnostic atheist. It also overstates the case in its title - in order to accept something as being possible it needs more than it being conceived. 1000 people on FB isn't a world wide movement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I'm a fan of Eagelman but on this occasion he's got the basic terminology wrong. I'm an a-theist (ie, without gods) for the same reason I'm an                 
a-leprechaunist (ie, without leprechauns) (and indeed for the same reason I'm an a-auraist and an a-biofieldist): there're just no reason or evidence that I'm aware of to be otherwise. That's not to say that I'm not open to the possibilities of any of these things, but unless I accept all of them (and every other possible conjecture too) as true then the only practical way to proceed is on the basis that none of them are until and unless there's a cogent reason to think otherwise.

Incidentally, I'm not sure there is a term for someone who says "there certainly are no gods" (or certainly no leprechauns for that matter). He uses "hard atheist" but that makes no sense to me as it fundamentally adds to a-theism a burden of proof the term doesn't require.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Just by way of a coda, your consistent mistake by the way so complain that people aren't open to the possibility of your various claims and assertions (which isn't true - most people are open to the possibility of anything) to just asserting those claims and assertions to be probabilities without troubling with the hard yards of reason and evidence to take you from a possibility to a probability.

Whenever this is explained to you though after much hand waving and prevarication you run away, only to start another thread that inexorably finds its way to the same mistake.

Why bother?   

[Stranger]

Meh - so he's an agnostic atheist who's "open to new possibilities"...

[Enki]

Hi everything,

Here is something on 'Possibilianism' that David Eagleman, a neuroscientist,  has been proposing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism

https://www.eagleman.com/blog/why-i-am-a-possibilian

***********

Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in strong atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.

Eagleman replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to...ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now.

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

 "Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time," he said. "As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one."

The List Magazine wrote: "Googling 'possibilian', the position Eagleman invented to explain his belief system, throws up the beginnings of a worldwide movement.

***********

Cheers.

Sriram

I am an atheist who is happily open to any possibilities you care to mention. I am in no way a supporter of a strong atheism which claims certainty that there is no god in exactly the same way that I am in no way a supporter of the idea that there is definitely a god. As I see no evidence for believing in any god, I therefore see no reason to believe in any god. In this sense I am an atheist. I suspect the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists on this forum are of a similar disposition, and therefore I am not sure why you have taken the time to post this.

As regards possibilities, I am quite happy to examine all sorts of hypotheses, but I reserve the right, in exactly the same way as everyone else, to critically examine them and to make my own judgement as to whether each hypothesis has merits or not, in my case, depending on the level of convincing evidence, rationality and logic that I can apportion to each. I don't need to call myself a possibilian to take the position that each hypothesis is possible.

As regards Eagleman, I find much that I am in sympathy with, especially his views and  ideas on the mind/brain. I found his TV series 'The Brain with David Eagleman' to be particularly fascinating, and would urge you, if you haven't already seen it, to give it a go. You will find all the episodes on YouTube.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

...and therefore I am not sure why you have taken the time to post this.

I am - he's pushing at an already open door that's a straw man of his own making. Sriram's schtick here is, "you Westerners are so programmed into microscopic thinking that you won't accept the possibility of the various claims and assertions I make, but here's a well-regarded academic who says that you should. So there."

It's utter nonsense for the reason that's been explained to him countless time but he just ignores - essentially that no-one denies the possibility of anything, but if he wants to bridge the gap from possibility to probability then he needs something more than unqualified assertion to do the job. So far though, he's shown no sign of having anything to say other than unqualified assertion.   

[Sriram]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0b4QCpFGc&t=438s

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0b4QCpFGc&t=438s

If you'd bothered to read the previous posts you'd know where he goes wrong. The argument isn't "there is a god vs no there isn't" at all. Rather the argument (inasmuch as there even is one) is actually, "there is a god vs you've given me no good reason to think you're right about that claim".

It's not difficult to grasp the difference - even for you.

[Stranger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0b4QCpFGc&t=438s

Which just confirms what others here have said.

Also, perhaps you should take note of what he says at time 13:30 and substitute auras and biofields for esp and crystals; "importing the tools of science" is exactly what people have been asking you to do with your unevidenced assertions.

[Alan Burns]

Yet more evidence that mankind on its own is incapable of discovering the truth behind our existence.

The truth has been revealed to us, but many are too blind to see it.

[Sriram]

Which just confirms what others here have said.

Also, perhaps you should take note of what he says at time 13:30 and substitute auras and biofields for esp and crystals; "importing the tools of science" is exactly what people have been asking you to do with your unevidenced assertions.

Listen again at 14.21......


"The interesting part of possibilianism really picks where the tool box of science leaves out. Where we no longer have the tools to address it..."

[torridon]

Yet more evidence that mankind on its own is incapable of discovering the truth behind our existence.

The truth has been revealed to us, but many are too blind to see it.

Which truth would that be ?  Sriram's ? Yours ?  The world has never been short of truth claims and they can't all be right.

[Gordon]

Yet more evidence that mankind on its own is incapable of discovering the truth behind our existence.

The truth has been revealed to us, but many are too blind to see it.

Aside from you begging the question again, Alan, I suspect that you are operating more in the realm of 'Impossibilianism'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Listen again at 14.21......


"The interesting part of possibilianism really picks where the tool box of science leaves out. Where we no longer have the tools to address it..."

And with more breaking news, turns out the Pope is a catholic and bears like to do their business in the woods. Everyone (pretty much) is a "possibilist": your dream up any conjecture you like, and I'll say it's a possibility. So what?   

[ippy]

Yet more evidence that mankind on its own is incapable of discovering the truth behind our existence.

The truth has been revealed to us, but many are too blind to see it.

This post of yours Alan? I wondered if you may have noticed that this post of yours is an exact fit with Catholic indoctrinational teachings.

I was wondering if this doesn't this worry you even just a little bit?

If it doesn't give you the slightest cause for concern you don't you think perhaps it should?

(My apologies if I'm wrong about you being a Catholic). 

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

 

[Stranger]

"The interesting part of possibilianism really picks where the tool box of science leaves out. Where we no longer have the tools to address it..."

Yes - and he really isn't saying anything new.

If something is so far beyond our ability to test it or investigate it, it may be possible, but that isn't, by itself, a reason to take it seriously. It can be no more than a guess.

If something isn't so far away, we might have reasons to take it seriously because, for example, it is derived from what is known. We don't know which (if any) of the hypotheses regarding the unification of  General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are correct, but each is based on ideas that can be justified, so we can regard them all as credible possibilities.

Some of the things you talk about shouldn't (if they were real) be in either category. I think I posted failed tests of people's claims about auras before. Your problem is that you don't seem interested in bring the tools of science to bear on your ideas - and you even ignore them when they actually falsify the claims (the specific aura claims that were tested, homoeopathy, and so on).

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

The important point here is not about  Eagleman or about any specific hypothesis.  It is about the fact that we cannot and should not take hard and rigid positions about the realities of life.  If science has taught us anything at all it is that the world is much more complex and strange than we imagine (or than we can imagine as someone has said). We merely need to acknowledge this fact.

And demanding that all experiences and all conjectures need to be validated by the hard methods of science is a mistake. The idea of possibiliniasm, if it does anything at all...is to challenge the idea of scientism. And this is the only aim of this thread. 

I am glad that there are now many young science professionals who are thinking out of the box and looking at new ways of understanding reality. The staid old school science is finally being challenged.....and that can only be a good thing. Moving forward from a very Dawkinian 'if we have an open mind, our brains will fall out' nonsensical position to one of openness....is most welcome.

Cheers.

Sriram   

[Stranger]

The important point here is not about  Eagleman or about any specific hypothesis.  It is about the fact that we cannot and should not take hard and rigid positions about the realities of life.

You've gotta laugh. Instead of actually facing up to the implications of something you yourself brought up for what you keep on trying to peddle here, you just pretend like nothing has been said and go back to preaching.

If science has taught us anything at all it is that the world is much more complex and strange than we imagine (or than we can imagine as someone has said). We merely need to acknowledge this fact.

Since when has this been questioned by anybody?

And demanding that all experiences and all conjectures need to be validated by the hard methods of science is a mistake. 

Again, you're just missing the point. If you want a conjecture to be taken seriously, you need to provide some reason for people to do so. If it's just a conjecture, then that needn't been solid evidence, but there has to be something.

An additional problem is that much of what you try to peddle here, you present as more than conjecture.

Yet another problem is that you ignore any attempt to apply science to what you think even if there is a potential to do so, and worse, ignore the results of tests when they have been done.

I am glad that there are now many young science professionals who are thinking out of the box and looking at new ways of understanding reality. The staid old school science is finally being challenged.....and that can only be a good thing. Moving forward from a very Dawkinian 'if we have an open mind, our brains will fall out' nonsensical position to one of openness....is most welcome.

You do love your little fantasies, don't you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The important point here is not about  Eagleman or about any specific hypothesis.  It is about the fact that we cannot and should not take hard and rigid positions about the realities of life.  If science has taught us anything at all it is that the world is much more complex and strange than we imagine (or than we can imagine as someone has said). We merely need to acknowledge this fact.

No-one that I know of doesn’t acknowledge that fact (well, no-one aside from certain theists perhaps). You’re in “breaking news: the Pope’s a catholic” territory again. 

And demanding that all experiences and all conjectures need to be validated by the hard methods of science is a mistake.

It would be if anyone did that, yes. So far as I know though, no-one does do that. That does not mean though that you can just assert a claim into a fact – if not for the tools and methods of science then you need some other method to distinguish the claim from just guessing. That’s your problem with “aura”, “biolfield” etc remember?

The idea of possibiliniasm, if it does anything at all...is to challenge the idea of scientism. And this is the only aim of this thread.

It’s barely an idea (and certainly not a new one) as it’s so endemic in the scientific community anyway, and scientism (ie, the statement that all that can be known can only be known by the tools of science) is a position held by no-one that I know of.   

I am glad that there are now many young science professionals who are thinking out of the box and looking at new ways of understanding reality.

I’m glad that you’re glad. There always have been though. That’s why people do science – to discover more. 

The staid old school science is finally being challenged.....

What “staid old school”? That’s something else you’ve just made up. Many paradigm-shifting discoveries science has historically made have been achieved by people thinking "outside the box” as you put it.

…and that can only be a good thing.

Yes, it always has been.

Moving forward from a very Dawkinian 'if we have an open mind, our brains will fall out' nonsensical position to one of openness....is most welcome.

That’s a misrepresentation of what he actually says. Being told to have an open mind is fine, but opening your mind so far that you accept any assertion of a fact as a fact with no means of verification is the “brain falling out bit”. Again, that’s your problem remember? 

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator A number of posts have been moved to the Searching For God topic on the Christian Board as they were a derail of this topic and the debate appeared to be a continuation of previous discussions on that topic.

[ippy]

Hi everyone,

The important point here is not about  Eagleman or about any specific hypothesis.  It is about the fact that we cannot and should not take hard and rigid positions about the realities of life.  If science has taught us anything at all it is that the world is much more complex and strange than we imagine (or than we can imagine as someone has said). We merely need to acknowledge this fact.

And demanding that all experiences and all conjectures need to be validated by the hard methods of science is a mistake. The idea of possibiliniasm, if it does anything at all...is to challenge the idea of scientism. And this is the only aim of this thread. 

I am glad that there are now many young science professionals who are thinking out of the box and looking at new ways of understanding reality. The staid old school science is finally being challenged.....and that can only be a good thing. Moving forward from a very Dawkinian 'if we have an open mind, our brains will fall out' nonsensical position to one of openness....is most welcome.

Cheers.

Sriram

It could be possible to help your hanging on to woo tendencies by reading the horoscope in your favourite newspaper and use the reading of that horoscope to give you the most auspicious moment to post another one of your woo promotional posts or equally you could go back to your more usual caged bird picking out a card that has these predictive tendencies that supposedly apply to you and would, I guess could possibly give you another equally as valid auspicious moment where it could also be advantageous to your apparent need to promote woo.

Cheers old boy, regards, ippy.