|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 12/27/2005 : 17:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Now, the lack of a natural explanation would still be reason to investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work. For instance, one of the first possible causes of the megacryometeors investigated was the possibility of a hoax. In my opinion, that remains a possibility, although the prankster would have to have some really expensive technology.
Hippy, whether there is an "intelligence" behind the phenomenon or not is irrelevant. To explain the hailstones you need to provide the mechanism by which they were formed. You seem to acknowledge this when you suggest out that "hoaxsters" is an insufficient explanation if one presents no means by which the hoax may be perpetrated (really expensive technology).
Similiar, "god" is not a sufficient explanation unless one presents the means by which god operates. By what mechanism did god make the hailstones? Any testable method at all? Without it, the "god" explanation will forever fail to merit consideration. It becomes just one unevidence theory among dozens, right up their with magical fairies, ice demons, and alien pranksters.
If you want to "investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work," then you need a place to start the investigation. You need to do more than simply throw out possibilities.
|
"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 12/27/2005 18:07:30 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2005 : 20:34:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My complaint is not against science itself, but against what many people call science. That's why in my OP I had science in quotation marks, I should have been clearer. When science is properly used it doesn't reject the supernatural out of hand. According to physics, there is no known physical way which the earth could have been created in six days. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the people who say "We know that the earth wasn't created in six days because there is no known physical way that it could have happened." It is in this way that science (or pseudoscience) rejects the supernatural out of hand. If poets rejected sculptures as meaningful forms of art because they didn't conform to poetry, I would also criticize them.
Right, except your OP isn't analogous to poets rejecting sculpture, but poetry rejecting sculpture. If you don't separate the people who practice within the field (poets and scientists) from the field itself (poetry and science), you sow all sorts of confusion. After all, science doesn't reject the supernatural with great prejudice, because there exist scientists who claim that any science which doesn't specifically give glory to the Saviour Jesus Christ is a necessarily incomplete science. In other words, "people who do science" is a category including everyone from the most die-hard, "god cannot possibly exist" atheist to the fanatically devoted Christian who lets his religion cloud his methodology, and all levels of belief and disbelief in between.
Given such a huge diversity of opinion - by actual scientists - over thoughts about at least one aspect of "the supernatural," the definition of what science is becomes paramount. And Lenny Flank's description is a concise and useful definition, which happens to not exclude anything supernatural a priori. The problem is simply that supernatural events are typically described in such a way that they exclude themselves from scientific consideration.quote:
Now, the lack of a natural explanation would still be reason to investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work.
Given the fact that murder investigations typically assume that "an intelligence is at work," even when a natural explanation is plausible (consider a murder faked to look like an accident), it simply doesn't matter whether one has a natural explanation or not in order to have a "reason" to investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work. Also given that there is no natural explanation for every single phenomenon that we haven't yet encountered, and it becomes clear that the lack of a natural explanation for something is not, by itself, at all a compelling reason to think that anything supernatural is occuring.
Also (and forgive me if this has already been discussed, I don't remember it), if I walk out to where I parked my car yesterday and find it missing, I will definitely think that there is "an intelligence at work" without once thinking that something supernatural has happened. In other words, I'll think that someone stole my car. So, an "intelligence" playing a role in some phenomenon is not a worthwhile discriminator between the natural and supernatural. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 14:57:07 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
quote:
Similiar, "god" is not a sufficient explanation unless one presents the means by which god operates.
I would agree that saying "god-did-it" doesn't explain how a thing happened, but that's not the important thing. The point of asking if a thing was caused by a supernatural being is to uncover the person, not the mechanism; the person can tell you how it happened if the person wants to.
Here's a scenario: if some guy came up to me and said "I caused the megacryometeors; in five minutes 25-lb hailstones are going to fall on this city for eight minutes." and then it happened just like he said, I would assume for the time being that he was indeed causing the hailstones by some mechanism that I didn't understand. If I was the scientist investigating the megacryometeors, I would, momentarily, stop looking into atmospheric conditions and ask him how he did it. Then he says "I'm not going to tell you how I did it, but I will tell you that if this city keeps on ignoring its homeless people I'm going to hit it again." I would halt my scientific investigation and campaign for better treatment of the homeless. If I accomplished my goal I would resume my investigation, starting by asking that guy some questions. What do you suggest that a scientist should do in such a situation?
Now, it's all well and good to try to discover a natural cause for an event, and if you discover the mechanism, great. If Yahweh gives you special revelation knowledge that He caused a thing to happen it's still okay to investigate how He did it. It's also okay to put together a pragmatic theory of how an event happened so that you can deal with the event. What isn't okay is to call that theory a fact, even if you get results from the theory.
Example: A person goes into the woods to pick berries. He comes across a small clearing which is sunny and sees lots of berries. He comes up with a hypothesis: the sunlight helps the berries to grow. He tests this hypothesis by investigating more portions of the woods and sees that wherever it is sunny there are more berries. Having successfully tested his hypothesis, he concludes that the sunlight helps the berries to grow, he picks lots of berries, and goes home with a full bucket. However, the actual reason was that the moose and the bears that lived in the woods preffered shady spots to sunny spots, and ate the berries in the shade.
quote:
If you want to "investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work," then you need a place to start the investigation. You need to do more than simply throw out possibilities.
Yes, but we're not to that point. This thread is about the conditions under which we should begin to investigate that possibility, and why we shouldn't dismiss that possibility out of hand.
To All:
I am not asking that Jesus Martinez-Frias read Revelations to find out the mechanism of the hailstones, and I'm not asking Stephen Hawkins to read Genesis to find out the mechanism of the origins of the universe. What I'm saying is this: when you find something that you can't explain and you have to make a pragmatic theory so that you can deal with it, don't say that that theory is the truth. Don't settle for that as an answer, don't call it a fact, and don't exclude any possibility without due consideration, even if that possibility is outside your field of expertise. Of course, the more far-fetched a possibility is, the less consideration it is due. But if the possibility does lie outside your field of expertise, then you shouldn't judge it by your field of expertise.
Dave:
quote:
Right, except your OP isn't analogous to poets rejecting sculpture, but poetry rejecting sculpture.
No, when I wrote those last two lines I was thinking of people dismissing other people; I should have made that clearer.
quote:
If you don't separate the people who practice within the field (poets and scientists) from the field itself (poetry and science), you sow all sorts of confusion.
Right. Sorry for the confusion.
quote:
And Lenny Flank's description is a concise and useful definition, which happens to not exclude anything supernatural a priori.
Agreed, although I have heard some people say that science can only investigate the natural, hence it excludes the supernatural. I disagree with those people.
quote:
The problem is simply that supernatural events are typically described in such a way that they exclude themselves from scientific consideration.
If a scientist was studying the effect of prayer on healing and recorded several instances in which someone prayed over broken bones and the bones were instantly made whole, then I think that he could safely conclude that something supernatural was happening and that the praying was part of it. But I would agree that he still wouldn't have found the mechanism.
quote:
Also given that there is no natural explanation for every single phenomenon that we haven't yet encountered, and it becomes clear that the lack of a natural explanation for something is not, by itself, at all a compelling reason to think that anything supernatural is occuring.
Ah, you're right. What I should have said (what I did say in my OP) is that an event which goes against known science is reason to investigate the possibility that something supernatural is happening. For instance, a person with a machine able to warp the space-time continuum and transport him anywhere on the planet would be working according to principles which scientists haven't yet discovered, but they do theorize that the principles exist; hence, they wouldn't consider it supernatural. But if a person was able to say "Abracadabra" and be instantly transported anywhere on the planet, scientists probably would consider that supernatural.
quote:
So, an "intelligence" playing a role in some phenomenon is not a worthwhile discriminator between the natural and supernatural.
True. The next thing you have to look at is the capability of the suspected intelligences involved. An intelligence may be behind the hailstones, but we do not know of any human intelligence which possesses the technology to create a 440-lb hailstone out of a clear sky. Although, maybe the hailstone was create |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 17:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
I would agree that saying "god-did-it" doesn't explain how a thing happened, but that's not the important thing. The point of asking if a thing was caused by a supernatural being is to uncover the person, not the mechanism; the person can tell you how it happened if the person wants to.
First you wondered about allowing for magic to explain events that are beyond your personal understanding. Now it sounds like you're changing your concern to the supernatural beings you think are responsible for the magic. I'm not sure the difference is significant. But since there is no evidence that any situation has ever occurred due to supernatural causes, or to the intervention of supernatural beings, the distinction is probably moot.quote:
Here's a scenario: if some guy came up to me and said "I caused the megacryometeors; in five minutes 25-lb hailstones are going to fall on this city for eight minutes." and then it happened just like he said, I would assume for the time being that he was indeed causing the hailstones by some mechanism that I didn't understand. If I was the scientist investigating the megacryometeors, I would, momentarily, stop looking into atmospheric conditions and ask him how he did it. Then he says "I'm not going to tell you how I did it, but I will tell you that if this city keeps on ignoring its homeless people I'm going to hit it again." I would halt my scientific investigation and campaign for better treatment of the homeless. If I accomplished my goal I would resume my investigation, starting by asking that guy some questions. What do you suggest that a scientist should do in such a situation?
The scientist should contact the necessary authorities to get that terrorist arrested immediately and put behind bars. That scientist should provide full testimony when it comes to prosecuting that dangerous criminal. Anyone, or any supernatural being for that matter, who threatens to damage or destroy people or property in an effort to get a population to succumb to his demands is a threat to freedom and peace. The terrorist should be dealt with swiftly and appropriately in that context. What else?
Of course it's likely that many people would draw parallels between that particular terrorist and the murderous destructive being described as "God" in that book of myths known as The Bible.quote:
If Yahweh gives you special revelation knowledge that He caused a thing to happen it's still okay to investigate how He did it.
Of course that's a silly hypothetical since nothing like that has ever happened yet, no special revelation, not from Yahweh, or Santa Claus, or even the Tooth Fairy. Again, your personal delusion does not constitute evidence. But if your favorite imaginary pal (out of the 5 or 6 billion of them that "exist" in the minds people on Earth) tells you that he/she/it caused something to happen, go ahead and believe it if you like. Just remember when the event gets investigated, no credence will be given to your claim that a voice in your head claimed responsibility.quote:
Yes, but we're not to that point. This thread is about the conditions under which we should begin to investigate that possibility, and why we shouldn't dismiss that possibility out of hand.
Maybe the answer to your basic line of questioning is this: Delusions, voices in your head, and interpreting myths as reality simply will not be accepted by science as supporting evidence of a supernatural cause for any occurrence. If that's what you mean by dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of supernatural intervention, then yes, supernatural causes, or more simply magic, will almost always be dismissed out-of-hand.quote:
I am not asking that Jesus Martinez-Frias read Revelations to find out the mechanism of the hailstones, and I'm not asking Stephen Hawkins to read Genesis to find out the mechanism of the origins of the universe. What I'm saying is this: when you find something that you can't explain and you have to make a pragmatic theory so that you can deal with it, don't say that that theory is the truth. Don't settle for that as an answer, don't call it a fact, and don't exclude any possibility without due consideration, even if that possibility is outside your field of expertise. Of course, the more far-fetched a possibility is, the less consideration it is due. But if the possibility does lie outside your field of expertise, then you shouldn't judge it by your field of expertise.
You say, "The more far-fetched the possibility is, the less consideration it is due." Let's say someone is considering magic as the cause of an event, the cause that you'd like to attribute to those events you can't explain. How much consideration should be given to the possibility of magic? By the scientific community? By us mere laymen? Since magic is usually the most far-fetched explanation available for any event, shouldn't it therefore be given the absolute least possible consideration when trying to determine a cause?
It sounds like you're suggesting that if someone isn't an expert in a field which provides a thorough, rational, scientific explanation for an occurrence, that person should accept the event may just as easily have a supernatural cause as natural. Wow, the gods made the sun disappear again! Hey, it's as good of an explanation as an eclipse. Oh, he's an astronomer? Okay, he can accept it as a simple eclipse.
You pose hypothetical questions in the form of, "If we actually have evidence to show that magic is real, then why shouldn't we accept it as a possible explanation for things we don't understand?" The questions are irrelevant because we don't have that evidence. So instead of posing the hypothetical questions, why don't you give examples of situations that have occurred as a result of supernatural intervention. Provide evidence and references, not your allegorical "evidence" from your book of myths. Oh, no such events? Oh, well.
Maybe you can explain what you would consider to be reasonable methods for testing whether an event has supernatural causes. You see, as (I think) H. Humbert has mentioned, without a method for testing, and without evidence that any such thing has ever happened before, considering magic as the cause is not just far-fetched, it is unreasonably far-fetched.quote:
The next thing you have to look at is the capability of the suspected intelligences involved. An intelligence may be behind the hailstones, but we do not know of any human intelligence which possesses the technology to create a 440-lb hailstone out of a clear sky. Although, maybe the hailstone was created in a wind tunnel, then transport |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 20:00:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
The supernatural, which I define as 'that which is impossible according to the laws of physics', is excluded a priori from 'scientific' examinations.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My complaint is not against science itself, but against what many people call science. That's why in my OP I had science in quotation marks, I should have been clearer. When science is properly used it doesn't reject the supernatural out of hand.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Agreed, although I have heard some people say that science can only investigate the natural, hence it excludes the supernatural. I disagree with those people.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
You said:
quote:
I made the statement that you began this thread with a complete misunderstanding of science and supernatural.
Even if this was true, it still has nothing to do with the argument.
Apparently it does have something to do with the argument since you felt the need to clarify your original statement.
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 16:23:56 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
quote:
The scientist should contact the necessary authorities to get that terrorist arrested immediately and put behind bars.
So you would agree that it would be a likely possibility that the "terrorist" was by some unknown mechanism causing the hailstones. And what should the scientist do if the authorities don't believe him?
quote:
Of course that's a silly hypothetical since nothing like that has ever happened yet, no special revelation, not from Yahweh, or Santa Claus, or even the Tooth Fairy.
What branch of science and what evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?
quote:
Delusions, voices in your head, and interpreting myths as reality simply will not be accepted by science as supporting evidence of a supernatural cause for any occurrence.
How do you know if a specific instance really is a delusion or a myth, and not authentic?
Scenario: Suppose that a man dies in a car accident, but the man's wife tells a detective that she overheard another man talk about sabotaging the car. Wouldn't the detective investigate? If this isn't evidence, what is it?
quote:
Let's say someone is considering magic as the cause of an event, the cause that you'd like to attribute to those events you can't explain. How much consideration should be given to the possibility of magic? By the scientific community? By us mere laymen? Since magic is usually the most far-fetched explanation available for any event, shouldn't it therefore be given the absolute least possible consideration when trying to determine a cause?
Magic should be given the least consideration so long as there is a non-magical explanation which is at least likely (i.e., it could have happened and the circumstances indicate that it did happen). Even if the event has no likely non-magical explanation I still wouldn't give magic much consideration unless someone else wanted to bring forth some evidence that magic was involved. It is when things happen which go against our knowledge of how things are supposed to happen when magic should be most considered.
quote:
Maybe you can explain what you would consider to be reasonable methods for testing whether an event has supernatural causes.
Procedures for determining a claim of magical causation:
1. Determine reliability of the claimant and how they came by their information. Anything which seems to be unique to the claimant is suspect (i.e., the tooth fairy doing things other than exchanging teeth for quarters). Check for motives for lying and evidence of mental instability.
2. Determine type of magic claimed: a universal impersonal Force, Powers weilded by an intelligence, or something else.
a) Impersonal Force: ask for situations under which this force operates, experiment.
b) Powers from an intelligence: If the intelligence is readily available, question it. If not, examine any knowledge about it and determine 1) if it exists, and 2) if it claims to have the means, motive, and opportunity to cause the event in question.
quote:
It sounds like you're suggesting that if someone isn't an expert in a field which provides a thorough, rational, scientific explanation for an occurrence, that person should accept the event may just as easily have a supernatural cause as natural.
No, I'm suggesting that
1) when you can't find the cause of an event it's okay to make a pragmatic, workable theory about the cause so long as you don't call that theory a fact, and
2) that people should not reject a possible cause unless they are knowledgeable enough to rightly do so. In this example you gave:
quote:
Wow, the gods made the sun disappear again! Hey, it's as good of an explanation as an eclipse. Oh, he's an astronomer? Okay, he can accept it as a simple eclipse.
the person talking concluded that the gods made the sun disappear and he concluded that the eclipse was not the right explanation. He should have done neither one unless he had evidence for either one.
quote:
You pose hypothetical questions in the form of, "If we actually have evidence to show that magic is real, then why shouldn't we accept it as a possible explanation for things we don't understand?" The questions are irrelevant because we don't have that evidence.
Actually, my hypothetical questions are posed in the form of "If you saw something which appeared to be unnatural how would you investigate it?" The difference is important. The vast majority of people don't claim to have received visions, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that everyone who does claim to have had a vision is incorrect. Suppose I'm sitting on a bus and receive a vision which nobody else sees. Does their not seeing it mean that I didn't see it? Whether or not they saw it makes no difference, the test is in the accuracy of the vision itself.
quote:
So instead of posing the hypothetical questions, why don't you give examples of situations that have occurred as a result of supernatural intervention. Provide evidence and references, not your allegorical "evidence" from your book of myths. Oh, no such events? Oh, well.
First we need to determine that we won't reject a theological argument on purely non-theological grounds.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 22:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Originally posted by me...
The scientist should contact the necessary authorities to get that terrorist arrested immediately and put behind bars.
So you would agree that it would be a likely possibility that the "terrorist" was by some unknown mechanism causing the hailstones. And what should the scientist do if the authorities don't believe him?
No I would not agree that it is "a likely possibility that the 'terrorist' was by some unknown mechanism causing the hailstones". I would imagine that if the terrorist had a method for creating and launching the hailstones there is probably some explanation that falls within the realms of natural laws.
I am actually aware that there have been papers published which endeavor to explain the cause of the giant hailstones, papers which suggest unusual humidity and atmospheric conditions during the days before the appearance of the hailstones. You, hippy4christ, would be aware of this, too, if your vision on this issue weren't so jaded by your desperate desire to see this event explained as the result of magic.
Whether or not the scientist is aware of the specific cause should have no bearing on his concern that the terrorist is arrested for the crime. What should the scientist do if the authorities don't believe him? If bricks have been thrown through windows in the neighborhood, and a stranger comes up to you and tells you he has been throwing bricks through windows, and you inform the authorities, and they don't believe you, what would you do? Hint: Whether or not the authorities believe you has no bearing on whether the guy who confessed to throwing the bricks was some supernatural entity.
You're the one person in this discussion who would take the least intelligent, least productive possible action in this situation. It was you who said...quote:
If I was the scientist investigating the megacryometeors, I would, momentarily, stop looking into atmospheric conditions and ask him how he did it. Then he says "I'm not going to tell you how I did it, but I will tell you that if this city keeps on ignoring its homeless people I'm going to hit it again." I would halt my scientific investigation and campaign for better treatment of the homeless.
You'd succumb to the demands of a terrorist, you'd cease doing your job, and you'd change the course of your career because some terrorist approached you with his confession. Most people are more intelligent than that. Most people are more dedicated to their careers. Most people aren't so easily swayed by the demands of a terrorist.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Originally posted by me...
Of course that's a silly hypothetical since nothing like that has ever happened yet, no special revelation, not from Yahweh, or Santa Claus, or even the Tooth Fairy.
What branch of science and what evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?
Logic. The burden of proving that a supernatural being exists, or that a supernatural event has occurred, falls upon he who makes the claim. The evidence does not exist, therefore we can not reasonably come to the conclusion that the being or the event is real. Neither a figment of your imagination nor allegories from your book of myths constitute evidence.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
How do you know if a specific instance really is a delusion or a myth, and not authentic?
Scenario: Suppose that a man dies in a car accident, but the man's wife tells a detective that she overheard another man talk about sabotaging the car. Wouldn't the detective investigate? If this isn't evidence, what is it?
You've created a hypothetical that has nothing to do with your belief in magic, as is a habit with you. The situation is completely irrelevant to the discussion.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Magic should be given the least consideration so long as there is a non-magical explanation which is at least likely (i.e., it could have happened and the circumstances indicate that it did happen). Even if the event has no likely non-magical explanation I still wouldn't give magic much consideration unless someone else wanted to bring forth some evidence that magic was involved. It is when things happen which go against our knowledge of how things are supposed to happen when magic should be most considered.
It just might be possible you are too dense to understand, but I'll try one more time. When things happen that go against your understanding of how things are supposed to be, your believing that magic is the cause is your argument from incredulity. Nobody has ever, since the beginning of time, for any situation, event, occurrence, or phenomenon, brought forth any evidence that magic was involved. You've been asked several times in this thread, and in others on these forums, to provide evidence of a supernatural being or of magic being the cause of an occurrence. You've been asked to describe any situation that is known to have supernatural causes. You have yet to provide any.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Procedures for determining a claim of magical causation:
1. Determine reliability of the claimant and how they came by their information. Anything which seems to be unique to the claimant is suspect (i.e., the tooth fairy doing things other than exchanging teeth for quarters). Check for motives for lying and evidence of mental instability.
2. Determine type of magic claimed: a universal impersonal Force, Powers weilded by an intelligence, or something else.
a) Impersonal Force: ask for situations under which this force operates, experiment.
b) Powers from an intelligence: If the intelligence is readily available, question it. If not, examine any knowledge about it and determine 1) if it exists, and 2) if it claims to have the means, motive, and opportunity to cause the event in question.
You're starting out with the premise that magic exists. You've accepted that the Tooth Fairy is real. You're assuming that a particular type of magic can already be determined. You've accepted that there is a supernatural being who might be responsible for the magical causation. You'll need to back up a step and verify the existence of the Tooth Fairy, and your imaginary pal, or any supernatural entity at all for that matter. In order for you to do that you'll need to prov |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 16:53:45 [Permalink]
|
If the 'super'natural realm exists, but by definition there is no 'evidence' to confirm that, then on what basis is anyone aware of this 'super'natural realm?
This is the argument I've had with claims that science can't address the religion question (knowing the theoretical basis for having a "'super'natural, science doesn't address that" category).
If there is anything measurable then there is evidence to evaluate. If 'God' has intervened in any way then there will be some thing that was done in a way that defies physics or other natural law, or there will be some means of distinguishing what was done by 'God' and why we conclude it was done by 'God'.
There either is evidence of an occurrence or there is no reason to conclude an occurrence occurred. And any evidence of an occurrence can be addressed by science. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/05/2006 16:54:42 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 13:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
quote:
No I would not agree that it is "a likely possibility that the 'terrorist' was by some unknown mechanism causing the hailstones". I would imagine that if the terrorist had a method for creating and launching the hailstones there is probably some explanation that falls within the realms of natural laws.
By "unknown mechanism" I simply meant 'any device or process we are unaware of'. For instance, to a primitive tribesman, an engine would be an unknown mechanism until it was explained.
quote:
I am actually aware that there have been papers published which endeavor to explain the cause of the giant hailstones, papers which suggest unusual humidity and atmospheric conditions during the days before the appearance of the hailstones. You, hippy4christ, would be aware of this, too, if your vision on this issue weren't so jaded by your desperate desire to see this event explained as the result of magic.
And I am aware that the scientists who put forth their explanation called it speculation. I have never claimed that hailstones were a supernatural event, it's just one that I'm considering.
quote:
You're the one person in this discussion who would take the least intelligent, least productive possible action in this situation. It was you who said...
You'd succumb to the demands of a terrorist, you'd cease doing your job, and you'd change the course of your career because some terrorist approached you with his confession. Most people are more intelligent than that. Most people are more dedicated to their careers. Most people aren't so easily swayed by the demands of a terrorist.
If someone controlled that technology it would be most likely that he wasn't acting alone. Hence there would be this organization with the power to do things that other top scientists havn't figured out, and they had the secrecy to use their technology incognito. Therefore arresting the guy probably wouldn't do much good, and cities would still be getting pummeled with hail. And what are his demands? That the cities take care of their homeless. So yes, I would succumb to his demands, I would cease doing my job, and I would change the course of my career, because that would lead to better things for more people. At that point, I would help more people by doing what he said then by continuing my job.
quote:
Logic. The burden of proving that a supernatural being exists, or that a supernatural event has occurred, falls upon he who makes the claim. The evidence does not exist, therefore we can not reasonably come to the conclusion that the being or the event is real. Neither a figment of your imagination nor allegories from your book of myths constitute evidence.
Are you saying that you will consider the supernatural to be untrue until it is proven to be true? That is bias. It is reasonable to not conclude that the supernatural is true until it has been proven true, and it is reasonable to hypothesize that the supernatural is untrue until you see some good evidence for it, but it is unreasonable to conclude that the supernatural is untrue unless you have evidence on which to base that conclusion (for instance, if out of a fair sampling everyone who had claimed to have had a supernatural vision had a malfunctioning brain at the time). I hypothesize that the Hindu religion is false, but I haven't looked at it sufficiently to make a conclusion about that hypothesis.
quote:
It just might be possible you are too dense to understand, but I'll try one more time. When things happen that go against your understanding of how things are supposed to be, your believing that magic is the cause is your argument from incredulity.
1) I have never said that I believed magic to be a cause because an event seems to go against the natural laws, that would be argument from incredulity. What I have said is that such an event would cause me to consider the supernatural.
2) It's not my understanding of how the universe works that we're talking about, we're talking about the known laws of physics.
quote:
Nobody has ever, since the beginning of time, for any situation, event, occurrence, or phenomenon, brought forth any evidence that magic was involved. You've been asked several times in this thread, and in others on these forums, to provide evidence of a supernatural being or of magic being the cause of an occurrence. You've been asked to describe any situation that is known to have supernatural causes. You have yet to provide any.
The reason why I haven't brought forth evidence for the past few pages is because we haven't agreed on what constitutes evidence. So why don't you tell me, what do you think would constitute evidence of the supernatural? From your response to my "terrorist" scenario it seems that you would accept that someone who makes an accurate prediction about an event likely has something to do with that an event. So would you consider fulfilled prophecy to be evidence of the supernatural?
quote:
You're starting out with the premise that magic exists.
No, I'm not.
quote:
You've accepted that the Tooth Fairy is real.
No, I haven't.
quote:
You're assuming that a particular type of magic can already be determined.
Yes. The wall that I'm sitting next to is either red or it isn't (it isn't). "Magic" is either guided by an intelligence or it isn't. An intelligent being is either composed of matter or it isn't. Of course, it may be that the claimant has no idea what type of "magic" was invlolved.
quote:
You've accepted that there is a supernatural being who might be responsible for the magical causation.
No, I haven't. It is not until part "b", number "1" that the question of the existence of such a being is brought up, and it is not at all assumed to exist in this process.
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 15:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Take it from the top, hippy4christ. Magic is generally not considered one of the possible causes of events, occurrences, or phenomena for a few reasons. One, there is no definition of magic that is universally accepted by science. You've been asked several times to define magic. Your answer continues to be, magic is that for which you don't accept a natural explanation or for which there is not yet an understood natural explanation. Your personal incredulity, if only because it is so extremely subjective, is not going to be a valid definition for magic within the realms of science. And a lack of other natural explanation is not equivalent to magic being the cause.
Another reason that magic isn't considered a likely cause for an event is that there is no evidence of it (really pretty much however you'd define it) having ever been the cause of any event before... ever. Your hypothetical scenarios aren't evidence. Your delusions aren't evidence. The stories in your book of myths aren't evidence. Your beliefs aren't evidence. When you're asked to provide some evidence, you don't. Nobody has. Here's how science works. Until we examine that evidence, it simply can not be considered as a legitimate factor in the cause of anything.
You set up hypothetical situations and hope that someone will agree that, yes, in that case, it's magic. Well you've succeeded. If there is magic, then there is magic. What more do you want? The next thing to do, if you want magic to be legitimately considered as the cause for an event, or for your imaginary pal to be considered the intelligence behind the magic, you must define magic in such a way that is accepted by the scientific community at large, and you must bring forth the evidence that establishes that magic, or your imaginary friend who does the magic, exists.
Until you have sucessfully undertaken your task of defining magic and bringing in the evidence, all your wishing, wanting, and desperate pleas for the rest of us to accept your version of magic will continue to be rejected. That's how science works. That's the answer to your question in this thread. And the answer to your actual dilemma? You don't really have any faith. If you did this wouldn't be an issue for you.
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 17:57:47 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
What would be considered evidence of magic?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 18:30:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
What would be considered evidence of magic?
Repeatedly pulling a rabbit out of a hat in a controlled environment in the presence of neutral observers. Or perhaps turning water into wine, subject to double-blind confirmation by expert chemists.
Really, it isn't that hard to think up dozens of such tests.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 21:33:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
What would be considered evidence of magic?
Well I guess you'd have to work out some definition of magic that would be commonly acceptable. You'd have to come up with a method to quantify it, to weigh it or measure it. You'd have to get that definition refined in such a way that it could be utilized quantifiably in the sciences. If you're going to claim it exists, it's your job to define it. It seemed that was already made pretty clear by at least a few participants in this thread, but you do show a tendency towards ignorance when it suits supporting your desire for magic to be real. So I'm not surprised it got past you.
You've just about worn out your little game of trying to stump the intelligent people. You keep fishing, hoping you'll be able to pose some question that makes us all say, wow, I bet he's right by golly there is a god. It's not working, and you only continue to make yourself look more foolish by persisting with that lame stunt. So listen up one more time, as difficult as it is for you...
You need to define magic, and in a way that is acceptable to science. It will not be defined as something that you don't understand or that is not yet understood to be the result of some natural processes. Then you need to bring on the evidence to show it exists. Your delusions don't count. Quotations from your book of myths don't count. Your incredulity doesn't count. Evidence. Examples. Repeatable. Testable.
I don't get why you want everyone else to do your job for you. Well, yes I do. You're either too lazy or too unintelligent to do it yourself, or there just isn't any known way to make magic and your imaginary buddy acceptable to science as possible explanations for events. You're the one that thinks magic is real. Get up off your faithless lazy ass and do the work yourself.
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 23:56:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
What would be considered evidence of magic?
Taking home the Randi $1,000,000 prize would be a good indicator. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2006 : 16:15:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Humbert said:
Repeatedly pulling a rabbit out of a hat in a controlled environment in the presence of neutral observers. Or perhaps turning water into wine, subject to double-blind confirmation by expert chemists.
GeeMack said:
Well I guess you'd have to work out some definition of magic that would be commonly acceptable. You'd have to come up with a method to quantify it, to weigh it or measure it. You'd have to get that definition refined in such a way that it could be utilized quantifiably in the sciences.
What Humbert is describing is a way to determine if something supernatural occured. What GeeMack is describing is a way to examine the supernatural itself. I would agree that if I was attempting to prove that an event was caused by a particular force then I would have to do what GeeMack is suggesting. But as I've said many times before, I am merely trying to determine if something supernatural occured, and, possibly, who is responsible for it. So, to rephrase my question, what would you consider evidence that someone caused an event through supernatural means?
On another note, what Humbert is describing would probably be considered some rather conclusive evidence. Are there not things which would be considered evidence even though they are less conclusive? For instance, if a robbery happened at a certain time and the suspect has no alibis for that time period, wouldn't that be evidence, though it isn't conclusive?
quote:
GeeMack said:
You need to define magic, and in a way that is acceptable to science.
I defined the supernatural at the beginning of this thread, and I've only made one change to that definition since. My definition is: that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics. Why is this unacceptable to you?
quote:
It will not be defined as something ... that is not yet understood to be the result of some natural processes.
This presumes that it will be found to be the result of some natural process. So if we find an event that we can agree is against the known laws of physics, how much time would you want to investigate and see if there is indeed some natural process that we're unaware of?
GeeMack:
Please reply to these unanswered posts:
quote:
quote:
You said:
Logic. The burden of proving that a supernatural being exists, or that a supernatural event has occurred, falls upon he who makes the claim. The evidence does not exist, therefore we can not reasonably come to the conclusion that the being or the event is real.
I said:
Are you saying that you will consider the supernatural to be untrue until it is proven to be true? That is bias. It is reasonable to not conclude that the supernatural is true until it has been proven true, and it is reasonable to hypothesize that the supernatural is untrue until you see some good evidence for it, but it is unreasonable to conclude that the supernatural is untrue unless you have evidence on which to base that conclusion (for instance, if out of a fair sampling everyone who had claimed to have had a supernatural vision had a malfunctioning brain at the time).
quote:
From your response to my "terrorist" scenario it seems that you would accept that someone who makes an accurate prediction about an event likely has something to do with that an event. So would you consider fulfilled prophecy to be evidence of the supernatural?
quote:
But what if you know about a miracle but nobody else does?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 01/09/2006 16:18:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
