Materialism

[Outrider]

I am not saying that an after-life is there or not. What I believe is irrelevant for this discussion.

Then I apologise for misrepresenting you.

My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects...how will it possibly know about an after-life and how will it investigate that phenomenon?

By measuring and investigating the observable effects. 

It simply doesn't have the tools!  (you have understood that point correctly).  That is all I am saying...

We don't know if it has the tools, as we don't know anything about a purported 'afterlife'. It may be that we currently don't have the tools, but equally it may be that there is no afterlife. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until there is evidence in support of the idea it's nothing more than a dream.

Stop saying ....'your claim so your burden of proof'.  I am not making any claim (in this thread). You claim that science can  understand and investigate all phenomena. So, you have to establish that science is capable of knowing of an after-life and is capable of investigating it.

No, no we don't. Science is a method for investigating claims. If 'afterlife' is not your claim, fair enough, but whomever does make the claim needs to point to the evidence that supports the claim, and science can then be used to investigate the evidence around that claim to determine if it's a viable concept. Until some reason to think an afterlife is a valid claim, there is nothing for science to investigate, and no way to determine if we currently have the right tools or if no tools are necessary.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

My question is simply.....if science really can investigate and know reality in all its aspects..

I just corrected you on this. That's not a claim that science makes. Why do you keep straw manning this? 

[Sriram]

Then I apologise for misrepresenting you.


We don't know if it has the tools, as we don't know anything about a purported 'afterlife'. It may be that we currently don't have the tools, but equally it may be that there is no afterlife. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until there is evidence in support of the idea it's nothing more than a dream.

No, no we don't. Science is a method for investigating claims. If 'afterlife' is not your claim, fair enough, but whomever does make the claim needs to point to the evidence that supports the claim, and science can then be used to investigate the evidence around that claim to determine if it's a viable concept. Until some reason to think an afterlife is a valid claim, there is nothing for science to investigate, and no way to determine if we currently have the right tools or if no tools are necessary.

O.

As I said...I am not making any claim about an after-life (in this discussion).

I am simply pointing out that science does not have the necessary tools nor the scope to come to know of and to investigate any such things as a after-life, if it did exist. That is its limitation. That is all I am saying.

[Outrider]

As I said...I am not making any claim about an after-life (in this discussion).

I am simply pointing out that science does not have the necessary tools nor the scope to come to know of and to investigate any such things as a after-life, if it did exist.

If it exists, how is it beyond science, which is a technique for investigating observable phenomena and deducing from those observations likely explanations for the phenomena. If an afterlife were real, it would have observable phenomena. If it had no observable phenomena, if it had no discernible impact on existence... how would we say it was real?

That is its limitation. That is all I am saying.

And you're wrong. That's not a limitation of science, it's a limitation of your understanding of the methodology of science.

O.

[Sriram]

If it exists, how is it beyond science, which is a technique for investigating observable phenomena and deducing from those observations likely explanations for the phenomena. If an afterlife were real, it would have observable phenomena. If it had no observable phenomena, if it had no discernible impact on existence... how would we say it was real?

And you're wrong. That's not a limitation of science, it's a limitation of your understanding of the methodology of science.

O.

Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?

Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available.  Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.

Reality could be much more complex than we imagine. 

[Outrider]

Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?

Yes we knew about X-rays before Roentgen, he proved the theories about them and came up with reliable ways to generate them, but he started from what we could detect.

The germ theory of disease was around before Pasteur proved it.

We don't know of dark matter or dark energy; those are terms for notional causes for effects that we can detect but can't yet explain.

Afterlife is not even that, we have no observable effect which requires an explanation.

Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available.

To investigate what? The NDE's that you talk about have been thoroughly investigated, and the best supported explanations do not come down to 'spirits surviving beyond death.' Science IS investigating the claims of afterlife, and it's finding those claims to be wanting.

Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.

Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.

Reality could be much more complex than we imagine.

Reality already is more complex than we typically imagine; that doesn't mean that every notion that any crackpot comes up with is as valid as, say, germ theory, or Higgs' Boson or, even, dark matter.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.

String theory is not a theory as it has not be tested. It remains a hypothesis. Calling it a theory devalues the term.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did we know of microbes till whoever came along?

Really bad example to use in an attempt to justify your argument.

Ever since humans have been around they have experienced a common phenomenon - people became ill, experienced a range of symptoms, sometimes they died. Bit like your phenomenon that people report similar experiences during near death scenarios and other extreme stress scenarios.

For centuries these experiences of becoming ill were explained in non physical terms, they must be to do with people being being corrupted by spirits, experiencing the wrath of god, being possessed by the devil etc. There was no evidence for these explanations. Bit like explaining so-called near death experiences as being about a life after death.

Then science was able to ascertain that none of these things were the cause of the phenomenon of feeling ill, but the cause was clearly a real-world material effect of infection with certain microbes - bacteria, viruses etc. The scientific evidence explained the phenomena and was also able to help develop cures etc. A bit like current science which is able to explain the so-called near death phenomena in terms of observed neuronal activity associated with severe physiological stress conditions.

[Outrider]

String theory is not a theory as it has not be tested. It remains a hypothesis. Calling it a theory devalues the term.

Sorry, you are quite right - the description was right, awaiting testing, but yes that should be an hypothesis.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Did we know of X rays till Roentgen came along? Did we know of microbes till whoever came along? Did we know of Dark Mater or Dark Energy till recent decades?

Science has to catch up with reality.... ideas have to mature...technology has to be available.  Sometimes technology is not enough. Can technology help us see strings or 11 dimensions? They will remain on paper.

Reality could be much more complex than we imagine.

You keep making the same mistake of conflating your speculations with speculations about phenomena that were later shown to be real. Of course science didn’t tell us about things before science told us about things, but for your analogy to stand you should ask instead what science tells us about leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy. The answer is that same as the answer to what science tells us about a supposed after-life: nothing. So what though? 

“Science once didn’t know stuff that it does know now” tells us nothing at all about whether your speculation about an after-life is any more likely to be true than my speculation about leprechauns.

It's such a simple and obvious point that I wonder why you keep getting it wrong?
     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

You keep making the same mistake of conflating your speculations with speculations about phenomena that were later shown to be real. Of course science didn’t tell us about things before science told us about things, but for your analogy to stand you should ask instead what science tells us about leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy. The answer is that same as the answer to what science tells us about a supposed after-life: nothing. So what though? 

“Science once didn’t know stuff that it does know now” tells us nothing at all about whether your speculation about an after-life is any more likely to be true than my speculation about leprechauns.

It's such a simple and obvious point that I wonder why you keep getting it wrong?
   

Tiny Irishmen fitting the description and tiny winged people have not been observed and there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to promote Irish tourism and a conspiracy involving millions of parents involving small amounts of money. Which reminds me how is the investigation into people making a wish while blowing out the birthday candles going?

[jeremyp]

 

You guys are just repeating yourselves and not getting the point.

No, we are repeating ourselves because you are not getting the point.

You assert all sorts of things about an afterlife and spirituality. It's up to you to provide evidence for your claims, not us.

Regardless of what I believe or not....if science really deals with reality in all its aspects....the question is.....how will science come to know if an after-life exists or not and how will it investigate it?

You tell us. It's you that proposes the existence of the afterlife.

Merely saying that...'using my microscope I can't see the stars, so they cannot exist' ....is rubbish.

We are not insisting that you use a microscope. We are not making any restrictions on what equipment you use (if any). All we ask is that the evidence you provide is verifiable by other people.

And jeremyp....pl don't tell me to shut up. That is not civil language.

I used a fairly common term "put up or shut up". It doesn't mean literally "shut up". I could equally have said "you're all mouth and no trousers".

[jeremyp]

Technology moves forward, though; the point of string theory, and the reason it's a theory (and, say, dark matter isn't) is that it's hypothetically testable, we just don't currently have the capacity. Just like the Higg's Boson was when Higg's postulated it, and now we do have the technology to prove it.

I don't agree on this point. String theory is not a scientific theory. There's no experimental evidence to show it is true (or at least not definitely false). String theory might be a theory in the mathematical sense i.e. a body of mathematical theorems and methods like, for example, graph theory and group theory, but it's somewhat above my pay grade to say if it is or not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Tiny Irishmen fitting the description and tiny winged people have not been observed and there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to promote Irish tourism and a conspiracy involving millions of parents involving small amounts of money.

Just as there’s “overwhelming evidence” for NDEs having nothing to do with a supposed afterlife you mean? Been a while since you tried the black swan fallacy though, so good to see you keep it in your armoury along with all the other fallacies you routinely trot out.   

Which reminds me how is the investigation into people making a wish while blowing out the birthday candles going?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking. 

Oh, and I see you’ve just run away again from the last set of rebuttals I gave you. ‘twas ever thus I guess – dishonesty and cowardice eh?

[Outrider]

I don't agree on this point. String theory is not a scientific theory. There's no experimental evidence to show it is true (or at least not definitely false). String theory might be a theory in the mathematical sense i.e. a body of mathematical theorems and methods like, for example, graph theory and group theory, but it's somewhat above my pay grade to say if it is or not.

Accepted - as NS pointed out, I should have defined that as an hypothesis, rather than a theory.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just as there’s “overwhelming evidence” for NDEs having nothing to do with a supposed afterlife you mean? Been a while since you tried the black swan fallacy though, so good to see you keep it in your armoury along with all the other fallacies you routinely trot out.   

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking. 

Oh, and I see you’ve just run away again from the last set of rebuttals I gave you. ‘twas ever thus I guess – dishonesty and cowardice eh?

You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism. Will you take this opportunity to apologise for that and maybe leave the forum for a period of reflection?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
   

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. There’s an irony though given that your entire case for “god” seems to rest on wishful thinking. 

Hillside, Leprechaunism is a better bet than that paper by Sean Carroll.

[Sriram]

Well...ok.

This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.

The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced. This of course, requires certain faculties that some people possess. If the faculties are absent these 'hidden' aspects of reality cannot be known.

This can also be linked to Implicit Pattern Learning....which is the ability to unconsciously sense and discern hidden patterns in ones life. This ability leads to a belief in subtle forces that cannot be normally sensed. These are experiential phenomena that are not amenable to normally accepted scientific methods of investigation.

That is all this thread is about.  Merely repeating that....'show us the phenomenon through our senses and we will accept it'.... doesn't make sense.

Thanks & Cheers.

Sriram
 

[torridon]

Well...ok.

This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.

The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced. ..

If they can be felt and experienced, that means that they are known to the senses.  Experience is derived from sensory information, ultimately.

[Aruntraveller]

If they can be felt and experienced, that means that they are known to the senses.  Experience is derived from sensory information, ultimately.

Surely it's obvious Torridon.

You don't have "certain faculties that some people possess"   

You (and I) are obviously defective in some way.

[Outrider]

The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced.

No, that's not an established fact. That's a claim, and that claim can and should be investigated. If you're suggesting, devoid of any basis, that science is somehow not an appropriate tool, what is your alternative?

This of course, requires certain faculties that some people possess.

Those 'faculties' we have that detect and discern the outside world... those are senses. If we can, as you put it above, 'feel and experience' then it's within the remit of science to investigate.

If the faculties are absent these 'hidden' aspects of reality cannot be known.

Or, alternatively, if some people think they're having experiences that are not related to actual phenomena, perhaps there is some sort of neurological or psychological episode occuring.

This can also be linked to Implicit Pattern Learning....which is the ability to unconsciously sense and discern hidden patterns in ones life.

Pattern recognition is smack in the middle of science's wheelhouse, as any number of machine learning scientists can attest.

This ability leads to a belief in subtle forces that cannot be normally sensed. These are experiential phenomena that are not amenable to normally accepted scientific methods of investigation.

Absolute nonsense, there are any number of 'subtle forces' that we cannot normally sense that are manifestly demonstrated by simple scientific principles; magnetism, x-rays, expansion of the universe...

That is all this thread is about.  Merely repeating that....'show us the phenomenon through our senses and we will accept it'.... doesn't make sense.

Merely repeating 'this is beyond science' whilst citing observable phenomena as the basis for your claim just continuously demonstrates your failure to understand the discipline you're attempting to repeatedly dismiss. It is almost certain that there are entire realms of reality outside of our current understanding and ability to detect; it's less clear that there is anything that is fundamentally outside of the scientific method's capacity to investigate, but if that were the case you'd have to explain why it was beyond science, and then come up with some alternative means of demonstrating or investigating the claim, otherwise you're just the guy in the 80's films with the 'End of the World is Nigh' sandwich board - a claim without justification just sort of hanging around  in the background and not really achieving anything.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You just tried to claim philosophical empiricism was somehow immune from criticism. Will you take this opportunity to apologise for that and maybe leave the forum for a period of reflection?

Your near-pathological lying here is undermined by how crap at it you are at doing it. Of course I never tried to claim that. Nor for that matter did I propose, imply or suggest any such thing. You could of course show me to be wrong about that by just citing a post I made in which I did do that, but as we both know there is no such post I suggest instead that you withdraw and apologise for your latest lie.

Your hero Jesus would be appalled by what you do in his name here.

Oh, and once you have withdrawn and apologised for your lie maybe it’s you who should leave the forum for an (ideally extended) period of reflection?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, Leprechaunism is a better bet than that paper by Sean Carroll.

I have never argued for leprechaunism, and I have no idea which paper you're referring to.

More to the point, I've rebutted several times here your various mistakes about philosophical and methodological materialism only for you variously to ignore, straw man and deflect from those rebuttals.

What's the point?   

[ProfessorDavey]

This thread is about science being materialistic, in the sense that it knows and investigates only those phenomena that can be directly or indirectly known to the senses.

Really?!?

If scientific instrumentation is detection radio-frequency emissions from distant pulsars then in what way is that directly or indirectly known to the senses - our senses are unable to detect at those frequencies. So I guess the furthest you might stretch this is if the scientific instrumentation had an optical read-out that a scientist looked at.

The reality is that science goes way beyond things that we can detect with our senses - that is one of its major strengths, it is able to go way beyond the limitations of our senses.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is that there are other aspects of reality that may not be known to the senses but can be felt and experienced.

Then if they can be felt and experienced then they will leave a measurable input within our physiology. A good example was in the paper today in which the strong bond between a grandmother and grandchild was considered scientifically. In this study brain activity was measured when a grandparent was shown images and video of their grandchild - some where the child was happy, others where the child was sad. The grandmothers typically felt and experienced a strong sense of empathy and bonding with the child through these images/videos - and guess what that feel and experience was clearly associated with predictable alterations in brain activities.