|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2005 : 22:41:53 [Permalink]
|
Second friendly moderator push of the day:
markie, I have seen you discuss "real science" and "ideal science" in this thread and in the topic, I am a logical Deist. To paraphrase Dave W., the present topic is about Occam's Razor. Please confine discussions here to those pertaining to the original topic.
I would appreciate it, however, if you were to explain what you mean by "ideal science" in the I am a logical Deist topic. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 01:49:09 [Permalink]
|
I myself follow the KISS principle, which is no more nor less than Ockham's writ small.
I fail to see how Ockham's Razor doesn't in some way apply to virtually all endevors, scientific or popular; glorious or mundane; sacred or profane. If a subject is needfully complicated, the blade must cut finer and perhaps more often, but that does in no way delete from it's philosophical value.
There are a great many things in this world that are neither fish nor fowl, nor one or the other, and on any of these, the Razor's philosophy might be applied multiple times. It will not always be correct -- what is? -- but it is always a good place to start and more often than not, the best place to finish.
Here's a thought: If Ockham's Razor were applied to religion, would there be any religion left? After all, they are entirely based upon assumptions.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 04:43:29 [Permalink]
|
| God did it. Case closed. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 05:59:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
God did it. Case closed.
Unsupported assumption; two of them, actually. Evidence...? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 06:42:37 [Permalink]
|
| It is the simplest of the answers, and I have 1 billion witnesses who all claim that existance itself or some sub-form of it is indeed evidence of "God did it." It was even the subject of one of the Skeptic conferences, really clarifying many scientific questions... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/15/2005 06:43:04 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 17:29:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If something interacts with "material reality", then it can be detected. Then, by definition, it is not in your "supermateial" realm.
If these "supermaterial beings" in their "supermaterial reality" don't interact with "material reality" and cannot be detected within it, then of what possible relevence are they?
My apologies for not getting back sooner. I find it difficult to have inunterrupted time at the computer.
The complication is that an entity could have overlapping aspects of supermaterial and material. Humans for instance would be very largely material, touching only relatively little upon a supermaterial level like mind or even less upon spirit. Other entities may only lightly interact with material reality, hardly enough for detection.
quote:
And I'm going to have to ask for your definition of "mind" as well. Because obviously you aren't using anything close to the one I am using, i.e. human consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain.
Yes consciousness would be one feature of mind. I don't have it in me right now to expound on this more. But one thing: Almost for sure, our state of 'mind' would be hugely dependant on the configuration of electrochemical impulse pattern in the physical brain. It may appear that mind is 'emergent' from electrochemical pattern but the most we can really say is that the two are very correlated. I wish I could say more about this now but perhaps on another thread at another time.
quote:
And, dare I ask, do you claim to have any evidence to support your ideas about "supermaterial reality/beings" ?
Besides life itself and the phenomenon of mind we witness in our species and to a lesser degree in others, hardly. At least nothing which would be scientifically satisfying. Gee I'm losing the good habit of writing in sentences...
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 18:11:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unfortunately, "materialistic science" implies that there exists a "non-materialistic science." Could you describe for us how a non-materialistic science might go about its work, expanding human knowledge about the universe?
Well, when I say "materialistic science" I only mean a science that has closed the door to even the possibility of nonmaterial influences. If for instance man in 1,000 years still can't create life in the lab, a materialistic science may say something like, "Darn! we know it happened through a process like this but we just haven't hit upon it yet." But a science which admits the possibility there may be more than in operation in the universe than is quanfifiable by (current) scientific method may say something like, "We concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate." I suppose most at this board, as yourself, would be of the latter persuasion.
Now that I think about it, I recall a science show about a year ago which documented a scientist's findings regarding a type of signalling between humans which had no apparent explanation, although the scientist appeared confident they would find an explantion. I'll try to find it and present it in the pseudo science section (although the methodology was hardly pseudo scientific).
quote:
Mind can leave in its wake things which would otherwise baffle a strictly materialistic science.quote:
Like what?
Well life and consciousness are baffling enough I think.
quote:
And restricting mind to biological entities may be premature to say the least.quote:
What evidence is there supporting that position?
Nothing that I know of as yet which would satisfy scientific criteria.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 19:00:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Unfortunately, "materialistic science" implies that there exists a "non-materialistic science." Could you describe for us how a non-materialistic science might go about its work, expanding human knowledge about the universe?
Well, when I say "materialistic science" I only mean a science that has closed the door to even the possibility of nonmaterial influences. If for instance man in 1,000 years still can't create life in the lab, a materialistic science may say something like, "Darn! we know it happened through a process like this but we just haven't hit upon it yet." But a science which admits the possibility there may be more than in operation in the universe than is quanfifiable by (current) scientific method may say something like, "We concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate." I suppose most at this board, as yourself, would be of the latter persuasion.
markie, I think you missed Dave's point. The term "material science" is nonsense however you define it, as there is no "non-material science." Science doesn't "close the door" to the possibility of nonmaterial influences because it is by definition an investigation of what can be measured or experimented upon. "Non-material" causes cannot, so they can't even be considered by science, let alone rejected by it. Either something interacts in a measurable way with reality or it does not. If it doesn't, science has no way to investigate it.
As such, the actual practice of science *requires* one to assume that causes can be investigated. The possiblity will always remain that some non-materials forces have acted in such a manner as to permanently confound scientists, but your to desire to hear a scientist exclaim "We concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate" is silly. No scientist would ever concede such a thing. What you propose is the end of scientific inquiry.
Science is a process of discovery through investigation. No scientist would ever "wrap up" his research by concluding that the answer which eludes him must necessarily defy investigation. As you have pointed out, progress has a way of making those who would make such proclamations appear foolish and rash.
Scientists assume that processes have discoverable and measurable causes behind them. This founding principle of science has born much fruit and led to a great many real and beneficial discoveries. It is impossible to deny the utility of this assumption. So no scientist would ever abandon it because it could be otherwise. Don't you see? It always could have been otherwise. But if you let that stop you, you get nowhere. Progress halts.
There is no bias to science except that it deal with measurable facts. Philosophically speaking, things which are immeasurable *might* exist. Science doesn't claim otherwise, it just knows it can't address that possibility. The pursuit of the immeasurable is the domain of metaphysicists and ministers. What you are really asking for when you express your hope that scientists "concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate" is for scientists to cease being scientists.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2005 19:04:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 19:12:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well, when I say "materialistic science" I only mean a science that has closed the door to even the possibility of nonmaterial influences. If for instance man in 1,000 years still can't create life in the lab, a materialistic science may say something like, "Darn! we know it happened through a process like this but we just haven't hit upon it yet." But a science which admits the possibility there may be more than in operation in the universe than is quanfifiable by (current) scientific method may say something like, "We concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate." I suppose most at this board, as yourself, would be of the latter persuasion.
Not really. Such a concession is at play in all sciences, all the time. That there are things we don't know is the very reason we have for doing science.
It seems to me that your position should be against dogma in all its forms, anything from Einstein's obstinate desire to rid quantum mechanics of probability equations, to Jon Edward and his "talking to the dead" schtick, all the way down to your local neighborhood quack adamantly stating - without evidence - that his snake-oil really does cure cancer.
If your position were such, I'd agree with it in a heartbeat. But, as it seems, your position is really that scientists should be more willing to throw up their hands and admit to what most people would call "the supernatural." But science doesn't deal with the untestable.
The reason we know the forces of the universe we do now is because they leave verifiable traces behind, constantly. Traces we can measure and test. Scientists don't concede to as-yet-unknown forces without being able to quantify them, which is half the "battle" to understanding them and making them part of "materialistic science" (which is still a lousy term, in that it doesn't mean what the words say).quote:
Now that I think about it, I recall a science show about a year ago which documented a scientist's findings regarding a type of signalling between humans which had no apparent explanation, although the scientist appeared confident they would find an explantion. I'll try to find it and present it in the pseudo science section (although the methodology was hardly pseudo scientific).
A word of warning: if it was something on the Discovery or Learning Channels, they've long given up any pretense of presenting only solid science. They pander to the almighty dollar, instead.quote:
Well life and consciousness are baffling enough I think.
Interesting. When I hear the word "baffling," I think of something so insoluble that geniuses throw up their hands and scream, "I'll never figure it out." However, cognitive and neurosciences seem to not be lacking in forward progress. Are you assuming that one day they (and abiogensis research) will hit some sort of limiting wall, and not be able to move forward any more? If so, why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 19:41:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The complication is that an entity could have overlapping aspects of supermaterial and material. Humans for instance would be very largely material, touching only relatively little upon a supermaterial level like mind or even less upon spirit. Other entities may only lightly interact with material reality, hardly enough for detection.
Again.... if something interacts with the universe around us, then it is (by definition) a part of that universe.
The very word "supernatural" (and by extension your use of "supermaterial") is completely meaning-free.
It always amazes me when people want to fill the gaps in our knowledge with arguments from ignorance (goddidit!), rather than just be satisfied with the fact that we don't know everything about how the universe works.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 20:02:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
markie, I think you missed Dave's point. The term "material science" is nonsense however you define it, as there is no "non-material science." Science doesn't "close the door" to the possibility of nonmaterial influences because it is by definition an investigation of what can be measured or experimented upon. "Non-material" causes cannot, so they can't even be considered by science, let alone rejected by it. Either something interacts in a measurable way with reality or it does not. If it doesn't, science has no way to investigate it.
Science may not be able to investigate non-material causes, but that doesn't mean it can't consider them. I'm of the opinion that religion and science are not to be kept in their separate corners with eyes shut to the other, but that each should have their eyes open to things encountered in their field which may be better suited in the other.
quote:
As such, the actual practice of science *requires* one to assume that causes can be investigated. The possiblity will always remain that some non-materials forces have acted in such a manner as to permanently confound scientists, but your to desire to hear a scientist exclaim "We concede that there may be additional forces at work at the universe which our science cannot as yet penetrate" is silly. No scientist would ever concede such a thing. What you propose is the end of scientific inquiry.
Note that I said "Cannot yet penetrate". The door is never closed. Who knows what new tools science may develop in the future, ones that might even seem supermaterial in our day and age.
quote:
Scientists assume that processes have discoverable and measurable causes behind them. This founding principle of science has born much fruit and led to a great many real and beneficial discoveries.
Well put. While it is good and expedient to assume that all causes can be detected and measured, I hope that science can also accept the possibility that not all causes are so defineable. Einstein said "Subtle is the Lord", and perhaps there is a level of subtlety which may defy our probing, who knows.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 20:15:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Science may not be able to investigate non-material causes, but that doesn't mean it can't consider them.
Yes, it does. It doesn't, however, mean that people can't consider them. I suspect a great many scientists reflect on such non-material ideas while off the clock.
Again, I think this might just be a case you wanting science to be something it isn't or can't be.
As far as whether science might progress to the point where the things of which you speak can be investigated? Well, if that occurs, then science will take a look. The door, as you say, is never closed in that respect.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2005 20:40:13 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 20:57:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But, as it seems, your position is really that scientists should be more willing to throw up their hands and admit to what most people would call "the supernatural."
"We cannot yet explain this phenomena with the current laws of science" would be enough for me. Actually I've seen alot of this kind of attitude in some recent cosmology articles, which is refreshing.
quote:
Scientists don't concede to as-yet-unknown forces without being able to quantify them, which is half the "battle" to understanding them and making them part of "materialistic science"
Good point. I'm more talking about a causitive influence which may defy efforts at quantization. The "vital spark" of life, for instance. (sure, laugh :))
quote:
However, cognitive and neurosciences seem to not be lacking in forward progress. Are you assuming that one day they (and abiogensis research) will hit some sort of limiting wall, and not be able to move forward any more? If so, why?
I think that knowledge in such fields will increase perhaps indefinitely. For instance I expect descriptive correlations between brain chemistry/configuration and consciousness states/mental performance to grow very nicely over time. But as far as true *explanatory* power into *how* or *why* consciousness should arise from purely electro-chemical processes, I don't believe there will be success in that regard.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 22:32:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
But as far as true *explanatory* power into *how* or *why* consciousness should arise from purely electro-chemical processes, I don't believe there will be success in that regard.
You don't believe it will or you don't want it to? It seems to me that your conceptions of "mind-meaning and spirit-value" require certain things to remain mysterious.
But you're correct in that the "why" will never be answered by science. In fact, the very question "why" is a faith-based query, as it assumes there is an underlying purpose to be unveiled in the first place.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/15/2005 22:37:59 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 08:50:09 [Permalink]
|
After browsing this thread, it looks to me that markie is arguing from a variant of God-of-the-gaps position.
Whatever happened to the Occam's Razor discussion? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
