Naturalism is meaningless?

[PyramidHead]

As an atheist, I often find myself lumped into the category of people who disbelieve the supernatural, the non-physical, and/or the paranormal. I've given it a lot of thought, and my conclusion is that these statements don't really have any meaning. What would something supernatural even look like? If it's observable by the senses then it's a sense phenomenon, period. Suppose I see a "ghost." Well, either light is bouncing off something in the hallway, or a combination of chemicals is being stimulated in my brain to make me think so. Either way, there's a so-called "physical" component (I put that word in quotes because I think it's similarly meaningless, given the congruity between it and the non-physical).

Supernatural explanations are not different as a matter of type, but differ largely in terms of their plausibility. To me, that just makes them very unlikely "natural" explanations. Intelligent Design theory, for instance, is often rejected as being outside of the realm of science because it relies on supernatural explanation. I disagree with this assertion. ID theory should be rejected because it's simply incorrect. It either disagrees with or misinterprets the evidence. Throwing it out because it implies a supernatural explanation is undisciplined, since there could be discoveries in the future of such phenomena, supported by actual evidence. I agree that it's unlikely, but to reject it in principle seems dogmatic to me.

Science rests on observation and deduction. If something supernatural exists, either (a) it can be observed, and therefore is no different from something natural, or (b) cannot be observed in any way, and is therefore not worth worrying about.

I changed my views on all this when I read Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis. In it, he examines the definition of God as believed by the majority of theists, extrapolates what the observable universe should look like assuming this God exists, and then compares the expected to the observed. As you might expect, the hypothesis is repeatedly falsified by the lack of evidence, or the presence of contrary evidence. There's nothing stopping us from treating any hypothesis, supernatural or not, in this manner. Doing so reveals that the supernatural wasn't in its own "realm" all along. I think we should stop talking about "material" and "physical" and just stick with "real."

[Lavis Knight]

I changed my views on all this when I read Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis. In it, he examines the definition of God as believed by the majority of theists, extrapolates what the observable universe should look like assuming this God exists, and then compares the expected to the observed. As you might expect, the hypothesis is repeatedly falsified by the lack of evidence, or the presence of contrary evidence. There's nothing stopping us from treating any hypothesis, supernatural or not, in this manner. Doing so reveals that the supernatural wasn't in its own "realm" all along. I think we should stop talking about "material" and "physical" and just stick with "real."

What would be supernatural to you?

[figuer]

I think we should stop talking about "material" and "physical" and just stick with "real."I think we should stick with "observable".

[PyramidHead]

I changed my views on all this when I read Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis. In it, he examines the definition of God as believed by the majority of theists, extrapolates what the observable universe should look like assuming this God exists, and then compares the expected to the observed. As you might expect, the hypothesis is repeatedly falsified by the lack of evidence, or the presence of contrary evidence. There's nothing stopping us from treating any hypothesis, supernatural or not, in this manner. Doing so reveals that the supernatural wasn't in its own "realm" all along. I think we should stop talking about "material" and "physical" and just stick with "real."

What would be supernatural to you?

My position as stated is that there is no natural/supernatural distinction unless the latter is totally unobservable (in which case it might as well not exist).

[Theophage]

One definition that some people seem to hold, is that intelligence is supernatural, and thus anything resulting from intelligent action or will is thus also supernatural. The idea behind this being that "Nature" has a particular way of behaving, and produces particular results. When you add intelligence into it, now we get things which don't happen "naturally". Just about every believer in Intelligent Design falls into this category.

To those who accept evolution, we can see how not only has life evolved, but intelligence has evolved as well, thus placing intelligence firmly in the camp of the natural. But for those who believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design, intelligence is one of those things which could not arise by natural processes, only from the actions of another intelligence (God), and is thus supernatural.

When science gets this whole mind thing figured out, it will be much harder to make this claim.

[Lavis Knight]

What would be supernatural to you?

My position as stated is that there is no natural/supernatural distinction unless the latter is totally unobservable (in which case it might as well not exist).

So you are saying that the supernatural is not observable and anything which happens to be observable must be a physical process?

Would that not make your premise unfalsifiable?

[LeoM]

One definition that some people seem to hold, is that intelligence is supernatural, and thus anything resulting from intelligent action or will is thus also supernatural. The idea behind this being that "Nature" has a particular way of behaving, and produces particular results. When you add intelligence into it, now we get things which don't happen "naturally". Just about every believer in Intelligent Design falls into this category.

To those who accept evolution, we can see how not only has life evolved, but intelligence has evolved as well, thus placing intelligence firmly in the camp of the natural. But for those who believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design, intelligence is one of those things which could not arise by natural processes, only from the actions of another intelligence (God), and is thus supernatural.

When science gets this whole mind thing figured out, it will be much harder to make this claim.

I personally don't see how intelligence is part of the natural realm thoughts are not located in space. We also have subjective experience which evolution and neuroscience either ignores it or sees it as a illusion generated by brain processes.

[figuer]

So you are saying that the supernatural is not observable and anything which happens to be observable must be a physical process?I think he says that anything observable is 'natural', but not necessarily physical.

[figuer]

I personally don't see how intelligence is part of the natural realm thoughts are not located in space.I don't see how you can justify this position.

[skepticalbip]

What would be supernatural to you?From what I have observed, the word supernatural is today used by people to describe explanations that they want to believe for events that they can't explain otherwise (whether the "events" actually happened or were imagined). As it turns out, the more scientific background someone has to understand the real world, the less that remains unexplained to them and so the fewer "supernatural" explanations required. For some reason most people seem to really resist admitting that they just don't understand or know something. Appealing to a supernatural explanation allows them to remain convinced that they understand - it preserves their fragile ego, or even gives them a sense of superiority "knowing" something others don't.

In effect, the more that someone has to appeal to "supernatural" explanations the more they demonstrate their ignorance of how the universe works. I much prefer those who are honest enough with themselves to simply say, "I dunno". I like that they don't feel the need to stroke their ego with illusions of "knowledge".

[Theophage]

I personally don't see how intelligence is part of the natural realm thoughts are not located in space. We also have subjective experience which evolution and neuroscience either ignores it or sees it as a illusion generated by brain processes.

I don't know about you, Leo, but my thoughts are located in my head, which is located in space. Also, you seems to be conflating "physical" with "natural" here. While I would say that something physical does indeed have some location in space, it does not necessarily follow that something natural does.

If thoughts are processes of the brain, then they are as locateable (is that a word?) as any other physical processes. For example, if a door shuts, that "shutting process" is located at the door. If you believe that thoughts come from somewhere other than the brain, all I can say is "Occam's Razor".

[skepticalbip]

I personally don't see how intelligence is part of the natural realm thoughts are not located in space. We also have subjective experience which evolution and neuroscience either ignores it or sees it as a illusion generated by brain processes.

I don't know about you, Leo, but my thoughts are located in my head, which is located in space. Also, you seems to be conflating "physical" with "natural" here. While I would say that something physical does indeed have some location in space, it does not necessarily follow that something natural does.

If thoughts are processes of the brain, then they are as locateable (is that a word?) as any other physical processes. For example, if a door shuts, that "shutting process" is located at the door. If you believe that thoughts come from somewhere other than the brain, all I can say is "Occam's Razor".
OOOHHHH!!!!! I think you are about to step in some really deep (and funny) Woo Woo here. If I remember right, then LeoM is one of the ones who have this idea that there is an all pervasive "universal consciousness", sort of an ethereal non-anthropomorphized version of God, that is the source of all thought. That the brain is just an organic receiver this God provides with all consciousness and thought.

This makes their idea of a "universal consciousness" much, much more invasive, controlling, and personal than the fundy's god that allows us to have our own thoughts and values. He just sits on a cloud and takes names so he can punish us for "bad thoughts".

[figuer]

If you believe that thoughts come from somewhere other than the brain, all I can say is "Occam's Razor".Which only means that it seems overly complicated to you... nothing more.

[figuer]

I think you are about to step in some really deep (and funny) Woo Woo here. Independently of the validity or absurdity of an idea, calling it "Woo Woo" is not only disagreeable and pointless, but is also detrimental to the exposition of the opposite position.

[Deleet]

I think this is another straw man attack on metaphysical naturalism. What definition of naturalism are you using?
What are the criteria of being natural? Or supernatural? This was discussed in another thread recently.

What the success of methodological naturalism suggests (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=244640)

[LeoM]

I don't know about you, Leo, but my thoughts are located in my head, which is located in space. Also, you seems to be conflating "physical" with "natural" here. While I would say that something physical does indeed have some location in space, it does not necessarily follow that something natural does.

If thoughts are processes of the brain, then they are as locateable (is that a word?) as any other physical processes. For example, if a door shuts, that "shutting process" is located at the door. If you believe that thoughts come from somewhere other than the brain, all I can say is "Occam's Razor".
OOOHHHH!!!!! I think you are about to step in some really deep (and funny) Woo Woo here. If I remember right, then LeoM is one of the ones who have this idea that there is an all pervasive "universal consciousness", sort of an ethereal non-anthropomorphized version of God, that is the source of all thought. That the brain is just an organic receiver this God provides with all consciousness and thought.

This makes their idea of a "universal consciousness" much, much more invasive, controlling, and personal than the fundy's god that allows us to have our own thoughts and values. He just sits on a cloud and takes names so he can punish us for "bad thoughts".


I never said he sits on a cloud taking names and punishing us for our bad thoughts.

Materialist's like skepticalbip assume that because their is a very strong. correlation between mind and brain that they must be reduce to one another and simply call our subjective experiences as an illusion.

We see a dual nature for mind body mind is obviously from the brain even materialist's admit this but still belief that the mind is generated by the brain somehow.


Occam's Razor only applies to certain things we know that the universe for example is far more complicated then we ever imagined.

[Deleet]

OOOHHHH!!!!! I think you are about to step in some really deep (and funny) Woo Woo here. If I remember right, then LeoM is one of the ones who have this idea that there is an all pervasive "universal consciousness", sort of an ethereal non-anthropomorphized version of God, that is the source of all thought. That the brain is just an organic receiver this God provides with all consciousness and thought.

This makes their idea of a "universal consciousness" much, much more invasive, controlling, and personal than the fundy's god that allows us to have our own thoughts and values. He just sits on a cloud and takes names so he can punish us for "bad thoughts".


I never said he sits on a cloud taking names and punishing us for our bad thoughts.

Materialist's like skepticalbip assume that because their is a very strong. correlation between mind and brain that they must be reduce to one another and simply call outr subjective experiences as an illusion.

We see a dual nature for mind body mind is obviosly from the brain even materialist's admit this but still belief that the mind is generated by the brain somehow.


Occam's Razor onyl applies to certain things we know that the universe for example is far more complicated then we ever imagined.

I think he was talking about the fundie god.

Your description of the materialist argument is simplified and closing to a straw man.

[LeoM]

The brain is a purely physical entity, having a weight, length, width, color, temperature and definite location in physical space, whereas the mind -- taken to mean mental states, such as memories, desires, wishes, hopes, beliefs, and fears -- possesses none of these properties. For instance, you cannot describe your desire to purchase a new car as having the property of being one inch behind your left ear, or being three centimeters in length or weighing four ounces, etc. In short, physical objects can be measured, weighed, and (in most cases) publically observed, whereas mental states can't.

[Deleet]

The brain is a purely physical entity, having a weight, length, width, color, temperature and definite location in physical space, whereas the mind -- taken to mean mental states, such as memories, desires, wishes, hopes, beliefs, and fears -- possesses none of these properties. For instance, you cannot describe your desire to purchase a new car as having the property of being one inch behind your left ear, or being three centimeters in length or weighing four ounces, etc. In short, physical objects can be measured, weighed, and (in most cases) publically observed, whereas mental states can't.

And?

[figuer]

I think this is another straw man attack on metaphysical naturalism. Why not simply a CRITICISM?

[figuer]

Occam's Razor only applies to certain things we know that the universe ....O.R. is simply a warning against over complication... there is also the opposite warning against over simplification. Thus it is rather meaningless.

[LeoM]

Occam's Razor only applies to certain things we know that the universe ....O.R. is simply a warning against over complication... there is also the opposite warning against over simplification. Thus it is rather meaningless.

Ok but i don't see how a soul with including another realm of reality as over complication look at the many world's interpretation it claims there are quadrillions of parallel universes.

[Theophage]

If you believe that thoughts come from somewhere other than the brain, all I can say is "Occam's Razor".Which only means that it seems overly complicated to you... nothing more.

I don't think you understand at all what I meant, I'll try to clarify.

First, Occam's razor is a principle which leads to good reasoning, just like any other. It says that a simpler explanation (one that has less things involved) is probably more correct. Why? Because adding more things to an explanation invariably adds more unevidenced things, and if you base things on reason, the less unevidenced things the better.

If we have two models of thoughts #1 where thought originates in the brain, and #2 where thought originates somewhere else but is channeled by the brain, model #2 is more complicated in the sense of the Razor. It requires the existence of something else and (at least to my knowledge) unevidenced to explain where thought comes from, and is thus less likely to be correct.

We can study the brain, and we may be right or wrong about it being the source of thought, but we cannot really study this nebulous "other" where mind supposedly comes from in model #2. Thus, not only is model #2 less reasonable, it is unscientific as well.

It's as simple as that.

[skepticalbip]

OOOHHHH!!!!! I think you are about to step in some really deep (and funny) Woo Woo here. If I remember right, then LeoM is one of the ones who have this idea that there is an all pervasive "universal consciousness", sort of an ethereal non-anthropomorphized version of God, that is the source of all thought. That the brain is just an organic receiver this God provides with all consciousness and thought.

This makes their idea of a "universal consciousness" much, much more invasive, controlling, and personal than the fundy's god that allows us to have our own thoughts and values. He just sits on a cloud and takes names so he can punish us for "bad thoughts".


I never said he sits on a cloud taking names and punishing us for our bad thoughts.

Materialist's like skepticalbip assume that because their is a very strong. correlation between mind and brain that they must be reduce to one another and simply call our subjective experiences as an illusion.

We see a dual nature for mind body mind is obviously from the brain even materialist's admit this but still belief that the mind is generated by the brain somehow.


Occam's Razor only applies to certain things we know that the universe for example is far more complicated then we ever imagined.I think you need to re-read my post. Did I even come close to your take on "universal consciousness" in the first paragraph?

The necessary results of that description of such a "universal consciousness" is that we would essentially be only meat puppets channeling that "universal consciousness" and interacting with other meat puppets channeling the same "universal consciousness". We would have no personal thoughts to be punished for.

The second paragraph describes how much less controlling and invasive the fundy's god is. This god "gave" us the ability to have individual thought and our own individual consciousness. He then sits on a cloud watching and judging how we freely used our consciousness then sending us to hell if we pissed him off.

If I was somehow forced to choose between the two, I'm afraid I would have to opt for individual choice then judgment by the fundy's god over being simply a zombie controlled by that ethereal universal consciousness.

In actuality, I see no evidence for or reason to believe that either god has any basis in reality.

[figuer]

Ok but i don't see how a soul with including another realm of reality as over complication look at the many world's interpretation it claims there are quadrillions of parallel universes.I didn't say it was an overcomplication. Either it fits the evidence or it does not. It seeming overcomplicated or oversimplified is totally irrelevant.

[Theophage]

The brain is a purely physical entity, having a weight, length, width, color, temperature and definite location in physical space, whereas the mind -- taken to mean mental states, such as memories, desires, wishes, hopes, beliefs, and fears -- possesses none of these properties. For instance, you cannot describe your desire to purchase a new car as having the property of being one inch behind your left ear, or being three centimeters in length or weighing four ounces, etc. In short, physical objects can be measured, weighed, and (in most cases) publically observed, whereas mental states can't.

I agree with you here, Leo. But you seem to be completely missing something critical. Many naturalists, such as myself, view the mind, thoughts, etc. as a process of the brain. Do you understand the difference between a process of the thing, and the thing itself? I'll try to explain.

Above I used an analogy of the shutting of a door. That is a process, an action that the door makes (or is made upon the door if you like, it doesn't matter for our purposes here). The shutting of the door is not a physical thing in and of itself, it is simply a process of a thing which is physical.

Where is the shutting of the door? Well, it is again not a physical thing in and of itself, the the location of the process occurs in all positions between the open door at the beginning, and the closed door at the end. Thus it does sort of have a position; it isn't over there where the door cannot reach.

You might as well ask where the blood circulation in the body. It isn't at any one particular place, it is a process carried out by your heart and blood vessels, and thus is all over in the heart and vessels. Where does the circulation go when the heart stops?

It is the same with the brain and thoughts. Thoughts are the patterns of electrochemical reactions in your brain. They happen all over your brain. Your "mind" is the sum of all these reactions. And when your brain ceases to function, your mind goes exactly where your circulation goes when your heart ceases beating.

It's as simple as that.

[Theophage]

Occam's Razor only applies to certain things we know that the universe ....O.R. is simply a warning against over complication... there is also the opposite warning against over simplification. Thus it is rather meaningless.

Yeah, just like since there are warnings about having too little water in your body and warnings about having to much, both warnings are meaningless. :rolleyes:

"Over simplification" means simplifying too much, it is not simplifying in general. Surely you can tell the difference?

[figuer]

"Over simplification" means simplifying too much, it is not simplifying in general. Surely you can tell the difference?Yes... can you?

[Theophage]

Yes I can, thank you, and I can even give you an example.

If we had good evidence that thoughts and the mind existed outside of the brain, then it would be oversimplistic to believe that thoughts originated in the brain. Why? because it would give an explanation which eliminates something that we have evidence is involved. This makes such an oversimplified explanation bad

If we have no good evidence that thought and the mind exist outside the brain, and instead had lots of good evidence that thoughts are generated by the brain (which is where our current understanding lies), then to assume the existance of something outside which is also involved is overcomplex, and for an explanation is thus bad.

It may be that consciousness/the mind/thoughts/whatever come from out of the aether, and are only channeled by our minds. But without sufficient evidence, Occams Razor says that this explanation is not good reasoning, and so do I.

[skepticalbip]

"Over simplification" means simplifying too much, it is not simplifying in general. Surely you can tell the difference?Yes... can you?When some point in the hypothesis relies on "then magic happens" without being able to model, describe, and test that magic, then it needs further simplification. If you can't make the hypothesis work without appealing to some undefined magic then the question must stay in the "I just dunno" stack until further information can be gathered and a better hypothesis generated.

[LeoM]

Yes I can, thank you, and I can even give you an example.

If we had good evidence that thoughts and the mind existed outside of the brain, then it would be oversimplistic to believe that thoughts originated in the brain. Why? because it would give an explanation which eliminates something that we have evidence is involved. This makes such an oversimplified explanation bad

If we have no good evidence that thought and the mind exist outside the brain, and instead had lots of good evidence that thoughts are generated by the brain (which is where our current understanding lies), then to assume the existance of something outside which is also involved is overcomplex, and for an explanation is thus bad.

It may be that consciousness/the mind/thoughts/whatever come from out of the aether, and are only channeled by our minds. But without sufficient evidence, Occams Razor says that this explanation is not good reasoning, and so do I.

I totally disagree I think their is sufficient evidence to show that the mind is generated by the brain is false such evidence would be the evidence for survival, psi phenomena, other evidences that conflict greatly with materialism such as internal impressions, stigmata the data from psychical research and parapsychology and other data show that more than likely that the mind survives death.

Here's a good review of the evidence for survival, psi and other phenomena

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/05/book-review-kel.html

[LeoM]

Yes... can you?When some point in the hypothesis relies on "then magic happens" without being able to model, describe, and test that magic, then it needs further simplification. If you can't make the hypothesis work without appealing to some undefined magic then the question must stay in the "I just dunno" stack until further information can be gathered and a better hypothesis generated.

Who ever said it was magic?

[Theophage]

I'm sure by "magic" he meant "something insufficiently evidenced, without even a theoretical mechanism".

Edited to Add: hmm...I should scratch "theoretical" above and replace it with "hypothetical". No sense confusing non-science advocates even further with the term "theory"...

[Marduk]

Please please please Leo let’s not go there again, as for the OP of course it is meaningless, the universe only contains things that exist. It does not contain things that don’t exist. BFD
Based mostly on a song from the mid 1980’s by a band called "The Records”

“girls that don’t exist dressed up in clothes I’ve never seen
on every subway wall and every glossy magazine
maybe it’s a conspiracy
girls that don’t exist are haunting me”

[LeoM]

The occam's razor rule is refuted here

http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm

[figuer]

If we had good evidence that thoughts and the mind existed outside of the brain, then it would be oversimplistic to believe that thoughts originated in the brain. But without sufficient evidence, Occams Razor says that this explanation is not good reasoning, and so do I.According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.

[Theophage]

I totally disagree I think their is sufficient evidence to show that the mind is generated by the brain is false such evidence would be the evidence for survival, psi phenomena, other evidences that conflict greatly with materialism such as internal impressions, stigmata the data from psychical research and parapsychology and other data show that more than likely that the mind survives death.

Here's a good review of the evidence for survival, psi and other phenomena

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/05/book-review-kel.html

I'm sorry Leo, I just read the link and I didn't see any evidence; I saw a book review in which the author agreed with the conclusions of the book. Perhaps you can point out what I was supposed to read there, but missed?

I should make it clear when I say that there is or is not good evidence for something, I'm usually talking about mainstream science. This is not out of any blind devotion or faith, it is simply that there are a lot of people who know more than me about the subject, and I tend to defer to their judgement unless I'm aware some something particularly anomalous.

[figuer]

The occam's razor rule....That's precisely what annoys me: that it is treated as a rule, when it is only a recommendation.

[Theophage]

According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.

Some evidence is not sufficient evidence. Any evidence that I have personally studied up on has been laughable at best, and generally subject to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. See my above reply to Leo with regards to things I personally haven't studied upon.

[Theophage]

The occam's razor rule is refuted here

http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm

What a pantload! I'm going to start a new thread regarding this link here in S&S, though it may get moved to philosophy. (I hope not, I loathe that forum...)

[figuer]

Some evidence is not sufficient evidence. It is sufficient to claim oversimplification.

[figuer]

No sense confusing non-science advocates even further with the term "theory"...I wonder who do you consider a "non-science advocate".

[LeoM]

According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.

Some evidence is not sufficient evidence. Any evidence that I have personally studied up on has been laughable at best, and generally subject to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. See my above reply to Leo with regards to things I personally haven't studied upon.

After studying the paranormal i found out that it is not dued to wishful thinking and confirmation bias but scientists with a healthy appetite of open mindness.

[Theophage]

After studying the paranormal i found out that it is not dued to wishful thinking and confirmation bias but scientists with a healthy appetite of open mindness.

And that's perfectly fine for you, Leo, but mainstream science agrees with me. So you'll forgive me for choosing who has the more rational and well supported opinion.

[GenesisNemesis]

After studying the paranormal i found out that it is not dued to wishful thinking and confirmation bias but scientists with a healthy appetite of open mindness.

And spiritualists seem to have acquired, not just a disliking, but a deep denial of skepticism in all forms. That can be fatal.

[Theophage]

It is sufficient to claim oversimplification.

Claims alone are never sufficient.

I wonder who do you consider a "non-science advocate".

Anyone who advocates non-science :P

[figuer]

It is sufficient to claim oversimplification.Claims alone are never sufficient.Pay attention: I was referring to the existence of evidence as basis for such a claim.

[LeoM]

After studying the paranormal i found out that it is not dued to wishful thinking and confirmation bias but scientists with a healthy appetite of open mindness.

And spiritualists seem to have acquired, not just a disliking, but a deep denial of skepticism in all forms. That can be fatal.

No they don't like dogmatic skeptics which are of different order from ordinary skeptics.

[GenesisNemesis]

No they don't like dogmatic skeptics which are of different order from ordinary skeptics.

Really? So if a spiritualist was given evidence that their position was false, they would accept the position that their previous position was false, thereby correcting themselves? Maybe not all spiritualists.

[LeoM]

No they don't like dogmatic skeptics which are of different order from ordinary skeptics.

Really? So if a spiritualist was given evidence that their position was false, they would accept the position that their previous position was false, thereby correcting themselves? Maybe not all spiritualists.

Yes but that is not the case. Skeptical scientists have gotten into the paranormal and the main objective was to show that all mediums and people with paranormal experiences were all deluded, fraudulent but to their surprise that was not what they found.

[skepticalbip]

When some point in the hypothesis relies on "then magic happens" without being able to model, describe, and test that magic, then it needs further simplification. If you can't make the hypothesis work without appealing to some undefined magic then the question must stay in the "I just dunno" stack until further information can be gathered and a better hypothesis generated.

Who ever said it was magic?I was just trying to be generic. Howabout if I change "magic" to "psi" for this sepcific case, would that be more appropriate?

When some point in the hypothesis relies on "then magic psi happens" without being able to model, describe, and test that magic psi, then it needs further simplification. If you can't make the hypothesis work without appealing to some undefined magic psi then the question must stay in the "I just dunno" stack until further information can be gathered and a better hypothesis generated.

[LeoM]

Who ever said it was magic?I was just trying to be generic. Howabout if I change "magic" to "psi" for this sepcific case, would that be more appropriate?

When some point in the hypothesis relies on "then magic psi happens" without being able to model, describe, and test that magic psi, then it needs further simplification. If you can't make the hypothesis work without appealing to some undefined magic psi then the question must stay in the "I just dunno" stack until further information can be gathered and a better hypothesis generated.

Yes if you want

[Theophage]

Pay attention: I was referring to the existence of evidence as basis for such a claim.

Thank you for that clarification, figuer. Of course there is "alleged" evidence. But is the evidence any good? Mainstream science hasn't been convinced yet. Hasn't been for hundreds of years. So I'm fairly confident in saying that their evidence adds up to bupkis, and thus discounting it is not oversimplification.

Earlier, LeoM attempted to give me some evidence, or what he said was evidence, but it was a link to a book review. This is the sort of thing that I usually come across when I personally research evidence for supernatural things, and thus once again, I have no reason to think that I'm wrong.

[LeoM]

Pay attention: I was referring to the existence of evidence as basis for such a claim.

Thank you for that clarification, figuer. Of course there is "alleged" evidence. But is the evidence any good? Mainstream science hasn't been convinced yet. Hasn't been for hundreds of years. So I'm fairly confident in saying that their evidence adds up to bupkis, and thus discounting it is not oversimplification.

Earlier, LeoM attempted to give me some evidence, or what he said was evidence, but it was a link to a book review. This is the sort of thing that I usually come across when I personally research evidence for supernatural things, and thus once again, I have no reason to think that I'm wrong.

So anything mainstream science says MUST be true i like the quote of William James.

"Either I or the scientist is a fool with our opposing views of probability," James wrote. The risk of appearing foolish, he believed, was the least of the dangers. There was also the risk of failing to investigate the world in all its dimensions, or making it appear smaller and less interesting than it really is. He worried about a time when people would become "indifferent to science because science is so callously indifferent to their experiences." He worried that a close-minded community of science could become a kind of cult itself, devoted to its own beliefs and no more.

And, as should be obvious here, I have come to agree with him.

[skepticalbip]

If we had good evidence that thoughts and the mind existed outside of the brain, then it would be oversimplistic to believe that thoughts originated in the brain. But without sufficient evidence, Occams Razor says that this explanation is not good reasoning, and so do I.According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.
I think you may be confused as to how science works here. The fact that "something" occurs is not what is at question. It is the "off the cuff, god of the gaps type" explanation for the occurrence that is.

It is fine to speculate that there is something called psi to explain it but then the problem for scientific investigation is then to find, verify, and model what this psi is, specifically how it works - not to gather more anecdotal stories of "occurrences". A billion anecdotes will not get you any closer to understanding psi (or if it even exists). The "occurrences" could be explained by many, many different conjectures but, until the model of how any of them actually work is demonstrated, none of them mean anything. You are still left with only knowing that the occurrences happen with no understanding of how or why. You may as well credit the trickster god Loki as psi until you model psi.

[figuer]

Mainstream science hasn't been convinced yet. Hasn't been for hundreds of years. So I'm fairly confident in saying that their evidence adds up to bupkis, and thus discounting it is not oversimplification.There was a time when "mainstream science" considered reports of meteorites to be false, because "everyone knows rocks can't fall from the sky". The theory of continental drift was not welcomed at first by "mainstream science", to the point where credible evidence was ignored in order to adhere to theory (dogma). Your "confidence" is misplaced, for "mainstream science" is nothing but people who have reached some conclusions based on accepting some evidence and rejecting other.

[figuer]

I think you may be confused as to how science works here. I think you ARE confused as to what I said, for it bears no relationship to your post...and spare me the "lessons" as to how "science works".

[skepticalbip]

I think you may be confused as to how science works here. I think you ARE confused as to what I said, for it bears no relationship to your post...and spare me the "lessons" as to how "science works".
Maybe I did misunderstand your post. If so, I apologize. Maybe you can explain it.
According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.
Are you not citing observed occurances of some phenomenia as this "evidence"? This is what I took you post to mean. Or are you saying that the psi researchers have evidence to confirm a model they have developed that explains specifically how psi works?

[Theophage]

There was a time when "mainstream science" considered reports of meteorites to be false, because "everyone knows rocks can't fall from the sky".

Citation please, that sounds odd. I can see a big rock up in the sky every night, it's called the moon. Are you confusing the conclusions of science with what is simply common belief?

The theory of continental drift was not welcomed at first by "mainstream science", to the point where credible evidence was ignored in order to adhere to theory (dogma).

On the contrary, small amounts of evidence did not change the prevailing science until they became large enough to be sufficient to be considered correct. No one "ignored" anything. When the evidence became overwhelming, mainstream science accepted it (as they should), though a few dogmatic scientists themselves still did not. Please do not confuse mainstream scientific knowledge with the beliefs of particular scientists.

I'm still not seeing anything wrong with what you are replying too...

Your "confidence" is misplaced, for "mainstream science" is nothing but people who have reached some conclusions based on accepting some evidence and rejecting other.

Which is exactly why it is worthy of confidence. How is that "misplaced"? Individual scientists can accept or reject whatever they want according to personal bias. Science as a whole does not have a bias, except toward reason and evidence.

Really I don't know why you are arguing so hard against mainstream science. Do you hold a personal pet woo woo theory that science rejects?

[LeoM]

There was a time when "mainstream science" considered reports of meteorites to be false, because "everyone knows rocks can't fall from the sky".

Citation please, that sounds odd. I can see a big rock up in the sky every night, it's called the moon. Are you confusing the conclusions of science with what is simply common belief?



On the contrary, small amounts of evidence did not change the prevailing science until they became large enough to be sufficient to be considered correct. No one "ignored" anything. When the evidence became overwhelming, mainstream science accepted it (as they should), though a few dogmatic scientists themselves still did not. Please do not confuse mainstream scientific knowledge with the beliefs of particular scientists.

I'm still not seeing anything wrong with what you are replying too...

Your "confidence" is misplaced, for "mainstream science" is nothing but people who have reached some conclusions based on accepting some evidence and rejecting other.

Which is exactly why it is worthy of confidence. How is that "misplaced"? Individual scientists can accept or reject whatever they want according to personal bias. Science as a whole does not have a bias, except toward reason and evidence.

Really I don't know why you are arguing so hard against mainstream science. Do you hold a personal pet woo woo theory that science rejects?

Mainstream science is not worried about investigating people's experiences with the paranormal if they did their view may change.

[figuer]

According to some there is evidence, thus they would consider it oversimplistic to deny their claimed evidence. Therefore O.R. is meaningless in that case.
Are you not citing observed occurances of some phenomenia as this "evidence"? This is what I took you post to mean. Or are you saying that the psi researchers have evidence to confirm a model they have developed that explains specifically how psi works?No, I am saying that to those who claim evidence about X it would be oversimplistic to propose any explanation that excluded X.

[figuer]

Citation please, that sounds odd. I can see a big rock up in the sky every night, it's called the moon. Are you confusing the conclusions of science with what is simply common belief?This is a rather well known story concerning the French Academy during the 18th century. And there is nothing odd. Institutions of knowledge are famous for confusing their interpretation of evidence with reality. On the contrary, small amounts of evidence did not change the prevailing science until they became large enough to be sufficient to be considered correct. No one "ignored" anything. When the evidence became overwhelming, mainstream science accepted it (as they should), though a few dogmatic scientists themselves still did not. Please do not confuse mainstream scientific knowledge with the beliefs of particular scientists.Naive.Which is exactly why it is worthy of confidence. How is that "misplaced"? Individual scientists can accept or reject whatever they want according to personal bias. Science as a whole does not have a bias, except toward reason and evidence.Naive.Really I don't know why you are arguing so hard against mainstream science. Do you hold a personal pet woo woo theory that science rejects?I detest dogmatism... be it from religion or 'science'. And drop the 'woo woo' nonsense.

[skepticalbip]

Are you not citing observed occurrences of some phenomena as this "evidence"? This is what I took you post to mean. Or are you saying that the psi researchers have evidence to confirm a model they have developed that explains specifically how psi works?No, I am saying that to those who claim evidence about X it would be oversimplistic to propose any explanation that excluded X.
I don't think we are communicating because I'm not sure what this means.

Say a Glass of cold milk falls off a table (The occurrence).

A psi researchers say this proves ghosts are in the room.

A physicists says no the table is slanted, the glass is sweating. It wet the table reducing friction and slid off under the force of gravity.

A geologists says no it was a minor trembler that shook it off the table.

A fundy says halaluya, god answered my prayers.

What is the evidence for any of those explanations? There is obviously evidence for the occurrence but until a working model of all the explanations can be tested and verified it can not be said to be evidence for any of them. To be tested and verified a model of specificaly how it works must be known.

[Theophage]

I detest dogmatism... be it from religion or 'science'. And drop the 'woo woo' nonsense.

I detest dogmatism too. Funny for as much as we seem to agree about some things we disagree about so many others. Must be my naivete :D

But again, I don't really understand your problem with mainstream science or normal reasoning. How is science dogmatic? How is reasoning dogmatic? Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?

[figuer]

I don't think we are communicating because I'm not sure what this means.I am sure we are not communicating because your posterior examples are not related to the concept I endeavor to communicate.

[figuer]

But again, I don't really understand your problem with mainstream science or normal reasoning. How is science dogmatic? How is reasoning dogmatic? Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?I have no problem with 'normal reasoning' and I don't see where I claimed reasoning being dogmatic.

Academic Science however can be extremely dogmatic. Actually, that is their "duty" in a sense.

[Theophage]

This is a rather well known story concerning the French Academy during the 18th century. And there is nothing odd. Institutions of knowledge are famous for confusing their interpretation of evidence with reality.

Which is why mainstream science never changes its mind about things...oh wait, it does. I guess the naysaying fuddy-duddies aren't as important as the perponderance of evidence, yeah? That's where my confidence lies too.

Anyway, I googled "french academy" and "meteors" looking for more information on this, but I wasn't able to find any. Can you toss me a link for me to read more about it? I only found this: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ma-Mu/Meteor-and-Meteorite.html
And the way it reads, people used to think that meteors were atmospheric phenomena, but they certainly believed they fell from the sky. They just didn't know from how high up in the sky until they gathered more evidence.

[figuer]

Anyway, I googled "french academy" and "meteors" looking for more information on this, but I wasn't able to find any. Can you toss me a link for me to read more about it? I read the story in D. Boorstin's "The Discoverers".

[Theophage]

I have no problem with 'normal reasoning'

Apparently you do. Occam's Razor and parsimony in general are considered part of normal reasoning.

and I don't see where I claimed reasoning being dogmatic.

Such reasoning is part and parcel of science. Since you expressed a problem with science, am I supposed to guess what parts you agree with and what parts you don't?

Academic Science however can be extremely dogmatic. Actually, that is their "duty" in a sense.

It is their duty to be "conservative", never dogmatic. I may be wrong, but it seems the only people who do declare science as dogmatic are those whose personal beliefs are opposed by it. Which is again why I asked what your beef with science was.

[figuer]

I have no problem with 'normal reasoning' Apparently you do. Occam's Razor and parsimony in general are considered part of normal reasoning.I have no problem with parsimony. I have a problem with people misunderstanding and misusing it, as you are doing in two current threads.

[Theophage]

Apparently you do. Occam's Razor and parsimony in general are considered part of normal reasoning.I have no problem with parsimony. I have a problem with people misunderstanding and misusing it, as you are doing in two current threads.

We really shouldn't have the same discussion in two different threads. Let's leave the Occam's razor discussion for over there (where yes, I did reply) and leave the dogmatic naturalistic science argument here.