Your source [...] suggests that science doesn't deal with aesthetics, but of course, not only is that wrong, but I've described some of the experiments and findings from those experiments in this thread.
It's rather that my source, - the nice people at the University of California, Berkeley - realized a long time ago that science couldn't be authoritative nor definitive in matter of aesthetics, and that they conceded the point.
You should try it some time, conceding you're not always right. Christians say it's good for the soul.
Similarly, your source states that science doesn't address questions of the supernatural, when in fact, it's been doing so for more than a hundred years and continues to do so to the present day.
See my above comment. Substitute the word "supernatural" for the word "aesthetics".
So what you're telling me is that "science" doesn't (and can't) do things that it has been well-documented in the literature as doing for more than a century.
A mind as astute and learned as yourself has certainly come across the saying: "The right tool for the right job", hmm ?
[Orfamay Quest]As I expressed it earlier, "you're standing in the middle of a cow pasture, surrounded by several tonnes of hamburger-on-the-hoof, and telling me that cattle don't exist. I'm not sure I'm going to believe you."
You're trying to be evocative here, aren't you ? It's not really your forte.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your source [...] suggests that science doesn't deal with aesthetics, but of course, not only is that wrong, but I've described some of the experiments and findings from those experiments in this thread.It's rather that my source, - the nice people at the University of California, Berkeley - realized a long time ago that science couldn't be authoritative nor definitive in matter of aesthetics, and that they conceded the point.
You should try it some time, conceding you're not always right. Christians say it's good for the soul.
That's the odd thing..... you see, I don't need to be "right" to recognize when someone else is "wrong." That's one of the insights of science. If you tell me that the capital of Mali is London, I don't need to know what the actual capital (Wikipedia tells me it's Bamako, but Wikipedia is not necessarily authoritative) is to know that you're wrong.
And, as I said, your source is pretty definitively wrong, when it states that science doesn't do something it's well-documented as doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things I would like you to consider, BigNorseWolf, that could be of interest to others too.
What I want you to consider is that your argument amounts to "we don't know something, therefore religion is true". This is terrible thinking, and it is the core of your argument no matter what veneer or posturing you put around it.
It seems you don’t think the study of the mind by the scientific method (i.e psychology) is really working.
I do not consider the vast majority of psychology to be using the scientific method. There is too much disconnect between the observation and the conclusion that renders experimentation difficult if not impossible.
Science has a very good track record of finding things out… except in matter of psychology ?
We're getting there. Brain scans, targeted EM waves, more objective ways of figuring out what someone is thinking then "well they did/said this so they must be thinking that..."
The human mind has been studied, and discussed, by philosophy, mysticism, religion since… forever.
So have the stars in the sky. A few people had the idea that they might be suns, but lots of religions and mystics did not reach that conclusion. Science not only proved what they are, but can tell you what they're made out of, how far away they are, and even if they have planets.
What do you propose we do, as human seekers of truth ?
“True wisdom is knowing what you don't know”
― Confucius
If you have a subject that is beyond your ability to study for real, beyond your ability to observe and test , and externally verify then you admit that and slowly, painstakingly figure out how to push the boundaries of your knowledge. Until you have done that you don't know anything, so you say you don't know anything. You do NOT get to simply make up your own answers and cop out on the explanations because its a "higher" level of mystery.
Is the human mind of little interest to you ?
It's of great interest to me. But if we don't have the tools yet then we don't have the tools yet.
Would you prefer not to study the human mind at all, so as to be on the safe side of knowledge, i.e not knowing anything at all ?
I would prefer if highly subjective analysis did not get to don the white lab coats of science. Therapists can be have valuable skills without being a science. You treat your conclusions with the surety that their evidence has earned them, no more, no less.
Will you not read or see any interest in the texts about the human mind in philosophy, mysticism and religion because…
their track records are terrible ?
I read and have interest in pathfinder and mythology books, but I don't mistake them for reality.
I don’t see the humbling retreat you speak of.
You're not looking. Worse, you're shutting your eyes because I've shown it to you. You want me to accept your arguments on no basis but deny having seen anything when shown the clear retreat of religious supposition when replaced by scientific fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be greatly interested in knowing how science explains the prevalence of religious beliefs in modern human beings
We're very prone to seeing patterns where there aren't any: a missed pattern costs you an opportunity or worse, will get you killed. Mistake a dappled patch of forest for a tiger costs you a few drops of adrenaline. Mistake a tiger for a dappled patch of forest? Dead caveman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see the humbling retreat you speak of.You're not looking.
As a very simple example, why do churches have lightning rods?
I would be greatly interested in knowing how science explains the prevalence of religious beliefs in modern human beingsWe're very prone to seeing patterns where there aren't any: a missed pattern costs you an opportunity or worse, will get you killed. Mistake a dappled patch of forest for a tiger costs you a few drops of adrenaline. Mistake a tiger for a dappled patch of forest? Dead caveman.
Yeah, it's called apophenia, and it's one of the many both subtle and overt aspects of human psychology that explains why religion remains so prevalent.
It's not scientific, but anyone who wants to know why religion persists should attend a service, or listen to a religion-focused radio station, or just chat with a few believers. There's no one-size-fits-all explanation, but there are a few patterns that emerge: the deep desire for unconditional love, the desire for certainty and purpose, the tribal instinct to be part of a group identity, the practical benefits which come with being part of a community, to name a few off the top of my head.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be greatly interested in knowing how science explains the prevalence of religious beliefs in modern human beingsWe're very prone to seeing patterns where there aren't any: a missed pattern costs you an opportunity or worse, will get you killed. Mistake a dappled patch of forest for a tiger costs you a few drops of adrenaline. Mistake a tiger for a dappled patch of forest? Dead caveman.
Yeah, it's called apophenia, and it's one of the many both subtle and overt aspects of human psychology that explains why religion remains so prevalent.
It's not scientific, but anyone who wants to know why religion persists should attend a service, or listen to a religion-focused radio station, or just chat with a few believers. There's no one-size-fits-all explanation, but there are a few patterns that emerge: the deep desire for unconditional love, the desire for certainty and purpose, the tribal instinct to be part of a group identity, the practical benefits which come with being part of a community, to name a few off the top of my head.
I am quite thankful for the answers provided here :-)
Now, all of those mentioned do not explain why there would be atheists. Nor what would actually make atheists fundamentally different from religious people.
Unless we posit that atheism is an evolution of the human being, like the next step in our collective progress. Which would then mean that atheists are inherently better/superior to believers, and that is not a notion I like, because I think that what an individual believes has no incidence on their value as a human being
Why would the next step of human evolution make someone better or worth more in any way?
Evolution is a random process, where the frequency of individuals breeding and their traits over time makes the species more adapted to the environment.
Nothing better or worse about it. Evolution is an amoral process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, all of those mentioned do not explain why there would be atheists. Nor what would actually make atheists fundamentally different from religious people.
Um, what? Atheists are not fundamentally different from religious people, so there's no reason to believe that any particular finding would explain something untrue....
Even theists disbelieve in god(s). Most Christians, for example, disbelieve in Zeus, Bast, and Thor. Atheist simply disbelieve in one more God than monotheists. And atheists may disbelieve in gods, but believe in faeries or tarot cards.
If there are, no one has yet identified them. And there's a very convincing argument that there aren't. Anything that has an effect on the observable universe can be studied scientifically.
But here's the thing. One of the philosophical questions I'm asking is basically
*Can you determine scientifically if phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods exist or not?*
The answer to that is obviously "No" by the very formulation of the question. It's a hard logical limitation on science. Do we agree on that?
Moving on to 'justice'.
Granting this for the sake of argument, the first obvious question is what, specifically, you mean by those terms.
What I mean by justice is that people guilty of crime get fair punishment while people innocent of crime do not. It's not a scientific concept by any means. But it's a real one.
can you, personally, distinguish between something that is just, and something that is unjust?
Not with any consistency or reliability. I still want it to exist.
Are your distinctions commonly shared (i.e., will others consistently make the same identifications that you do)?
They're commonly shared by some but there are a lot of differences as well.
And by your own argument, this proves the existence of an afterlife.
I'm not saying I'm proving the existence of an afterlife. I'm saying
* I want there to be justice* So I choose to believe in it.
* Justice requires an afterlife
* Therefore based on the previous 3 statements I choose to believe in an afterlife.
Oh one more quote I wanted to respond to OQ:
this is if it has no effect at all on any observable aspect of the human condition
Even if that is true it leaves unobservable aspects of the human condition untouched.
And I think it also falls afoul of inconsistent but observable aspects of the human condition. People are unhappy when they feel justice has not been done. People feel satisfaction when they feel justice has been done. This is observable. What people mean by that is different from person to person and hell for the same person at different times.
If there are, no one has yet identified them. And there's a very convincing argument that there aren't. Anything that has an effect on the observable universe can be studied scientifically.But here's the thing. One of the philosophical questions I'm asking is basically
*Can you determine scientifically if phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods exist or not?*
The answer to that is obviously "No" by the very formulation of the question. It's a hard logical limitation on science. Do we agree on that?
No, I'm afraid we don't agree. You haven't demonstrated the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods."
For example, "can you determine scientifically if four-sided triangles exist or not?"
The answer to that is pretty clearly "yes," as "four-sided triangles" are self-contradictory and therefore can be demonstrated via deductive logic to be non-existent. (And logic is part of the scientific method.) But, being nonexistent, they obviously cannot be detected, nor can they be confirmed.
The question thus hinges on whether or not "[that] which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods" is logically compatible with "exist." Give me appropriate definitions for both (you'll find the second is quite difficult) and I'll be happy to resolve the issue via logic.
The "weakness" of science -- and I use the scare quotes deliberately, because I don't view it as an actual weakness -- is that you need to phrase your hypotheses quite precisely in order for the experiment to return the results you need. More tersely, it answers the question you asked, not the question you wanted to ask. A lot of times, the result of the experiment is "you asked the wrong question."
As an example of that, the discipline of operations research was largely developed during the Second World War as a method of making best use of limited resources. For example, if the USA is trying to ship food, fuel, ammunition, and people to the UK, what's the optimal size of a convoy (and escort) to minimize shipping losses in the face of German U-boats?
Zero. No shipping, no shipping losses. The admirals had asked the wrong question. It turns out that determining the right question is itself a difficult problem. Maximize the amount of goods delivered? Maximize the ratio of goods delivered to goods sunk? Minimize the amount of goods lost while delivering at least a set amount of goods?
Of course, this is all part of "science." Specifically, it's part of the refining of hypotheses (by improving the statement to more closely correspond to what we actually want to ask).
Oh one more quote I wanted to respond to OQ:
this is if it has no effect at all on any observable aspect of the human conditionEven if that is true it leaves unobservable aspects of the human condition untouched.
If there are any such. "Assumes facts not in evidence."
And I think it also falls afoul of inconsistent but observable aspects of the human condition. People are unhappy when they feel justice has not been done. People feel satisfaction when they feel justice has been done. This is observable. What people mean by that is different from person to person and hell for the same person at different times.
.... and we're back to the social-contract theory of justice.
No, I'm afraid we don't agree. You haven't demonstrated the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods."
You're turning a question of epistemology into a question of metaphysics.
I'm not demonstrating the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods." That's not my concern.
I'm asking can Science make any conclusions in any way on such postulated phenomena other than 'Can't detect or confirm it'.
It's immaterial to my question whether (let's slightly simplify this)
"phenomena which cannot be detected by scientific methods"
actually exist or not. My question is can science conclude anything about them. And it can't. Because by definition
* those phenomena cannot be detected by science and
* the only thing you can conclude anything about something you can't detect is that you can't detect it.
The answer to that is pretty clearly "yes," as "four-sided triangles" are self-contradictory and therefore can be demonstrated via deductive logic to be non-existent.
I don't accept your example as I'm not speaking about phenomena that are self-contradictory. I'm speaking about phenomena that cannot be detected by science. These are different concepts. Certainly phenomena that are self contradictory are a subset of phenomena that cannot be detected by science but there is no reason to conclude that they are the same set.
(And logic is part of the scientific method.)
Sure, logic stand apart from the scientific method also of course. That's where you have philosophy.
The question thus hinges on whether or not "[that which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods]" is logically compatible with "exist."
I disagree. Whether such phenomena actually exist or not is a question of metaphysics. My concern is epistemology, on science's ability to comment on such phenomena.
If there are any such. "Assumes facts not in evidence."Sure. My point stands. The unobservable/undetectable cannot fall under the purview of the scientific method. That's a limitation on it.
Now there may not exist anything that is unobservable/undetectable. But the scientific method can't even conclude that.
That's another limitation on it.
and we're back to the social-contract theory of justice.Maybe? It's a very definitely detectable part of the human condition though. The desire for 'justice' is very real. There is a lot of inconsistency by what people mean by it though so it also is not under the purview of the scientific method..
I'm not demonstrating the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods." That's not my concern.
It should be. I'm not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist, which makes the rest of the discussion inappropriate.
It's immaterial to my question whether (let's slightly simplify this)"phenomena which cannot be detected by scientific methods"
actually exist or not. My question is can science conclude anything about them.
And it can. They exist, if and only if, they exist. That's an innocent tautology, which makes it a rather trivial conclusion, but a scientific one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]and we're back to the social-contract theory of justice.Maybe? It's a very definitely detectable part of the human condition though.
So is "pass interference." That doesn't make it not a social convention.
The desire for 'justice' is very real.
Absolutely. That doesn't make it not a social convention.
There is a lot of inconsistency by what people mean by it though so it also is not under the purview of the scientific method..
Inconsistency is not a problem; scientists have been dealing with inconsistent data for centuries. Weather is also inconsistent, but we're getting remarkably good at predicting it by identifying some of the zillions of factors that make it so.
I'm not demonstrating the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods." That's not my concern.It should be. I'm not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist, which makes the rest of the discussion inappropriate.
Why are you not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist for the purposes of an epistemelogical query?
Why are you not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist for the purposes of an epistemelogical query?
I'm not demonstrating the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods." That's not my concern.It should be. I'm not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist, which makes the rest of the discussion inappropriate.
Because you're asking me to assume that something exists that is not addressable by science in order to discuss the question of whether anything exists that is not addressable by science. You don't get to assume your own conclusion.
Why are you not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist for the purposes of an epistemelogical query?
I'm not demonstrating the logical coherence of "phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods." That's not my concern.It should be. I'm not willing to postulate that such phenomena exist, which makes the rest of the discussion inappropriate.
Makes it simple to assert that science can handle everything that matters. Just deny the existence (or importance) of anything that it can't address.
I have not denied its existence. I remain agnostic on the question. I simply point out that no one has managed to even to present philosophical evidence that such beasts are possible.
Once you've established that they're possible, we can discuss whether they exist (lots of things are possible, but do not actually exist). But if they're not even possible, they're certainly nonexistent.
And, of course, part of the reason for that is that no one has a working definition of "existence" they're willing to submit (with, I suspect, good cause).
*Can you determine scientifically if phenomena which cannot be detected or confirmed by scientific methods exist or not?*
The answer to that is obviously "No" by the very formulation of the question. It's a hard logical limitation on science. Do we agree on that?
Can you see a perfectly black object that emits no light?
While the technical answer is "no" you can still see that there's something you can't see because of how it futzes with your vision and blocks out other stars.
If something interacts with the real world it's detectable by science, even if it were completely incomprehensible to science.
If something doesn't interact with the real world in any way, shape, or form then its pretty irrelevant, and someone has no reason to postulate it's existence.
Orfamay Quest:
I'm not discussing the question of whether anything exists that is not addressable by science though. That's metaphysics and like I've said I'm not concerned with metaphysics here.
I'm concerned with the epistemology of what science can conclude about the unobservable/undetectable.
My claim here has nothing to do with whether the unobservable/undetectable exists
My claim here has to do with what science can say about the unobservable/undetectable.
My claim is:
All science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
I am quite thankful for the answers provided here :-)Now, all of those mentioned do not explain why there would be atheists. Nor what would actually make atheists fundamentally different from religious people.
Unless we posit that atheism is an evolution of the human being, like the next step in our collective progress. Which would then mean that atheists are inherently better/superior to believers, and that is not a notion I like, because I think that what an individual believes has no incidence on their value as a human being
The only difference between an atheist and theist usually boils down to how many gods they believe in. Most theists believe in one god and most atheist believe in one less then that. Atheists aren't smarter, better at reasoning, or less susceptible to lies than anyone else. Usually it boils down to us simply not seeing a reason to believe a given faith, often because we've studied science, philosophy, or read into our own religions or studied history and ancient beliefs. Expanding our education obviously isn't the only path that causes many of us to start doubting but it wouldn't surprise me it if were the most common.
So to be clear: I don't think atheists are in any way different from religious people, I'm sure most religious people remain that way simply because there's been no reason to doubt or question what they've been told. Some believers might even be skeptical but they likely have friends and family in the religion and might go through the motions of pretending to be religious simply due to social pressures. Others might believe simply for the certainty that it affords them in their lives. Not knowing things is a challenge and a thrill for the adventurous or curious, but that's going to cause anxiety or fear for other personality types, and so religion fills a void. Most people get very religious when left to contemplate their own mortality, hence the idea of an afterlife is very reassuring, and that's something science...
I don't think that atheists and other non-believers are different from believers in any way that can be neatly or reliably described. But I suspect that there are trends associated with believers and non-believers. For example, if one were to do a large survey I wouldn't be surprised to discover that non-believers tend to be low on the spectrum of desire for unconditional love, certainty, closely-knit community, etc. and/or high on the skepticism spectrum and/or be personally familiar with the dark side of the religion they were raised with. Whereas believers might tend to be on the other end of those spectrums.
I do think the world would be a better place with a bit more skepticism, but non-belief certainly isn't a new thing, nor do I think that belief reduces a person's value as a human being. Fun fact: Though Socrates was in fact a believer -- you might say that his personal patron was Apollo, the god of Truth -- he was accused of, tried, and executed for being an atheist. Because atheism was a known thing even back in the classical era, and probably from the very first moment that cave-preacher Bob started preaching his tribe's fanciful stories as literal truth.
Orfamay Quest:
I'm not discussing the question of whether anything exists that is not addressable by science though.
Right. But you should be, because that's the only way you'll get a handle on the epistemology.
My claim is:
All science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
And your claim is demonstrably wrong; counterexamples are upthread.
If something doesn't interact with the real world in any way, shape, or form then its pretty irrelevant, and someone has no reason to postulate it's existence.
It may still exist. (See, for example, some theories of tachyons.) Of course, that depends strongly on what one means by "exist."
Actually, tachyons (in some theories) are a good example of science being able to make statements about things that are not detectable by science.
Right. But you should be, because that's the only way you'll get a handle on the epistemology.
No, a question of what exists or not is metaphysics. Epistemology is about what can be known at all and is more fundamental.
And your claim is demonstrably wrong; counterexamples are upthread.
You can't use an example of a self contradictory phenomena as a counter to an undetectable/unobservable one. It's not the same set.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what makes me sad in this kind of thread here is that religious people are debated into submission to admit that there is no such thing as a god, that spirituality is a trick of the brain and that being religious means being irrational and opposed to science
I do not feel that this is in any way a tolerant behavior and as such it brings only strife and no greater understanding :-(
Well, it would be good if the derail could stop. Discussing the virtues of science vs religion is not relevant to this thread. It is about whether there is an afterlife or not. While this touches on science, the main issue is metaphysical, and thus outside the detection of science. Even if you find explanatory terms of it in a dictionary, Orfamay, it is the nature of the situation that such terms do not equate to the original word. It is sad that you do not see this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest:
I'm not discussing the question of whether anything exists that is not addressable by science though. That's metaphysics and like I've said I'm not concerned with metaphysics here.I'm concerned with the epistemology of what science can conclude about the unobservable/undetectable.
My claim here has nothing to do with whether the unobservable/undetectable exists
My claim here has to do with what science can say about the unobservable/undetectable.
My claim is:
All science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
As an example there is all sorts of physics work being done on things that can't be observed/detected.
A more specific example is the Higgs Bosun particle. The particle was predicted in 1964, but was not observed or detected until 2012. A lot of work, both practical and theoretical was done during the 58 years in between involving the particle, but we couldn't detect/observe it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
With the help of philosophers, mystics, and religious figures, I've learned that rhino horn cures gout.
Should the people who've been using rhino horn for centuries wait for men in white coats to study and validate their beliefs?
Do you think the practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine invented that treatment randomly?
That's absurd :)