Science is messy.

[Estrid]

Agreed. The word supernatural is another false dichotomy by materialists , which wrongly presumes a “natural” cause
Which is a misunderstanding in philosophical terms of what science can tell you.
Its like sagans folly. “ extraordinary claims “ is a subjective not objective bar used to raise the threshold against things materialists don’t like

Science is an observation model, it does not say why something happens in any fundamental sense , only what normally happens. Gravity does what it does. You cannot say it will always do it, or do it everywhere.
It’s limited to data set, So Saying “ explains “ simply means it is doing what it normally does, whatever the cause.
The only useful definition is if it happens in nature it’s natural. If God is acting in nature , what He does is natural too.

That's your way of sidestepping your bogus assertion
of fact about origin of life not being just chemistry?

It might not be.

To claim it IS so is just saying things.

An amusing display from one claiming
intellectual dishonesty on others' part

 

[dlamberth]

OK
Just look at the assertion of fact that I
questioned.

To state it as fact is just saying things.

" ....origin of life. It isn't just chemistry"

You consider that FACT, or opinion?

All I know is Big Bang. Because something we call Life came from that event, there was way more than just chemistry going on within the Big Bang and not separate from it. For myself this becomes a FACT when I was watching my infant grand-daughter's laugh and giggle and her face light up in glee for me to know that there's something beyond chemical source going on. She's an adult now. Again I reference the Hildegarde quote. To the OP, this is where science gets messy. Science has a hard time with with things like consciousness and self.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yet you cannot contest a word I said.

You may not understand it - but then it demonstrated you don’t understand science.

You did know that about ohms law did you? Or do I have to explain 8th grade to you As well?

Just for those who are interested in science , which is seemingly none on the board , from someone who has been there and done it, in senior positions all the way from military hush hush, to the very small to big astrophysics ( Thats a fine life - big telescopes are in lovely places )

As Einstein said it all starts with evidence.

noticing patterns in shapes of galaxies.
oddities in spectra
smudges on film.
interference patterns in double slits…


The next thing you do is try to determine if the evidence is consistent: what affects it. Try to refine it.
Then you look for the patterns, and if the data is numeric, look for experimental laws. Linear? Square?

A fascinating one for you all: why did speed of light measurements have small, but measurable and statistically significant errors? no hypothesis ever found, experimental evidence long precedes that -
but rather than pursue it, in the end they made speed of light constant, so now length varies! The most embarrassing graph in physics is now something else entirely! Even more faxcinating.

When you find a pattern, only then can you go back to the axiomatic model to see if it fits,
and if not how to change the model In a way that fits, the so called “ explanation” which is a consistency not fundamental test.

Galaxy shape has yet no “explanation “ ie model that fits with known matter, but galaxy shape observation evidence , doesnt disappear because of it. The evidence is the evidence.


There is an alterative route - extrapolate the model- then look for evidence that fits, in that case you are looking for evidence of something. Like gravity waves. Higgs boson. But in the main science starts with evidence first,
hypothesis (or not) comes later,

Sadly science lessons are clearly lost on you all.
if not - reread my comments on experimental laws and the nature of “ explanation” is not what you think.

Your faith in scientism blinds you. You are welcome to it.
But let’s Change the board title - “scientism and bad philosophy”
it seems to be the preferred subject here.

I take that as a "No". You imply you cannot provide a single instance where Hume does not speak of evidence as it being evidence for something, that something being a hypothesis, or equivalent.
You make claims of being well grounded in philosophy, so you must be familiar with Hume's work. Therefore, you should have little trouble in finding an example and thereby setting straight my thinking. Rambling on about the Higgs Boson and galaxy shape is irrelevant to the point. You claim my understanding of evidence is contradicted by philosophy, not just one flavour of philosophy, but all philosophy.
So, I'm asking you demonstrate to all my ignorance by finding Hume supporting your view. Simples. (Throw in a bit of Descartes too, if you like.)

 

[Mountainmike]

Please, could you expand on this thought?

...and this one as well?

I’m referring the science of veridical out of body experience.
At one time ( in seventies) assumed to be quack sciece and certainly it was career limiting for any who ventured there.
such as greyson (who produced the first analysis ) faced massive hostility when he first analysed NDE, it was near professional suicide to claim experiience of patients having them.

But as more was ,published , many more doctors became less reticent in sharing experience , and the trickle became a flood.
Beyond reasonable doubt now , patients had verifiable knowledge and experience of places , situations , people and conversations they simply CANNOT have known if consciousness was confined to the brain, and the details were too complex to guess or make up. Their “ consciousness” had drifted elsewhere.

if you want to study them eg try

Laurin Bellg - near death in icu
Any dervin et al - Self does not die ( all veridical - verifiable cases)
Pim van lommel - consciousness does not die. ( analytical ruling out other medical hypotheses, stats)
Many others besides eg neuro surgeon Alexander,
These are serious medical experts.

So consciousness is not just a function of the brain, and is more and more considered as only filtered by brain. Like the robot vehicle whose telemetry , cpu , or memory can blow ( brain) - the vehicle can eg lose right side function and or memory - the equivalent of a stroke, but the guiding intelligence ( consciousness ) operating controls is still intact.
there are various factors leading to that conclusion - not Just veridical nde.
- like the large number of areas of brain involved in simple tasks and no appsrent function coordinating them ( theres a medical neurology term describing that question - I forget it’s name)
- and where is the seat of memory in the Brain? van lommel describes the problem and why present assumptions don’t add up, implying memory is also outside the brain.
. Study van lommel.

van lommel cross references the Medical knowledge and other medical views About it.

What survives death is therefore consciousness, is the essence of life.
So assuming that , then life is not just chemistry , no chemical process can account for life.


Which is what Christian’s have always believed.

 

[Estrid]

All I know is Big Bang. Because something we call Life came from that event, there was way more than just chemistry going on within the Big Bang and not separate from it. For myself this becomes a FACT when I was watching my infant grand-daughter's laugh and giggle and her face light up in glee for me to know that there's something beyond chemical source going on. She's an adult now. Again I reference the Hildegarde quote. To the OP, this is where science gets messy. Science has a hard time with with things like consciousness and self.

You could just say you prefer not to address my concern.

 

[Estrid]

I take that as a "No". You imply you cannot provide a single instance where Hume does not speak of evidence as it being evidence for something, that something being a hypothesis, or equivalent.
You make claims of being well grounded in philosophy, so you must be familiar with Hume's work. Therefore, you should have little trouble in finding an example and thereby setting straight my thinking. Rambling on about the Higgs Boson and galaxy shape is irrelevant to the point. You claim my understanding of evidence is contradicted by philosophy, not just one flavour of philosophy, but all philosophy.
So, I'm asking you demonstrate to all my ignorance by finding Hume supporting your view. Simples. (Through in a bit of Descartes too, if you like.)

Big talk of knowledge and experience only
fools the naif.

 

[dlamberth]

You could just say you prefer not to address my concern.

I'm not understanding...I did answer.

 

[Mountainmike]

I take that as a "No". You imply you cannot provide a single instance where Hume does not speak of evidence as it being evidence for something, that something being a hypothesis, or equivalent.
You make claims of being well grounded in philosophy, so you must be familiar with Hume's work. Therefore, you should have little trouble in finding an example and thereby setting straight my thinking. Rambling on about the Higgs Boson and galaxy shape is irrelevant to the point. You claim my understanding of evidence is contradicted by philosophy, not just one flavour of philosophy, but all philosophy.
So, I'm asking you demonstrate to all my ignorance by finding Hume supporting your view. Simples. (Through in a bit of Descartes too, if you like.)

I’ve no idea who Hume is. Nor do I care
But as a director level scientist i know how science actually works. It’s messy.
As einstein says it starts with evidence. Noticing. Then refining. Filtering.
only then can you come up with a hypothesis!

And I know how the great discoveries were made, and what I spent a career doing!
Not someones idealised view of it.

If you think Higgs boson ( extrapolation of model ) and galaxy shape or smudges on film( evidence leading ) - which are the two entry points to the science process are “ irrelevant” , then I suggest you find a different vocation, science clearly isn’t for you. You literally woukd “ not know where to start” having discounted the only two ways forward.

if ever you get to the hard questions of science which challenge your perception of what is “ real”
you will discover that science doesn’t tell you what high school implies it does.


Even hawking got there late in his career with “ model dependent reality” . Which is a huge and profound philosophical shift from the presumed but thereby disproven “ theory of everything”

Anyway: I can lead a horse to water,I cannot make it drink.

 

[Estrid]

I'm not understanding...I did answer.

Do you think it's reasonable to statecan opinion
as a fact? I call it " just saying things".
In other contexts its perjury or fraud.

You appear to take the side that there's
no problem with stating opinion as fact.

Is that the case?

 

[dlamberth]

I’m referring the science of veridical out of body experience.
At one time ( in seventies) assumed to be quack sciece and certainly it was career limiting for any who ventured there.
such as greyson (who produced the first analysis ) faced massive hostility when he first analysed NDE, it was near professional suicide to claim experiience of patients having them.

But as more was ,published , many more doctors became less reticent in sharing experience , and the trickle became a flood.
Beyond reasonable doubt now , patients had verifiable knowledge and experience of places , situations , people and conversations they simply CANNOT have known if consciousness was confined to the brain, and the details were too complex to guess or make up. Their “ consciousness” had drifted elsewhere.

if you want to study them eg try

Laurin Bellg - near death in icu
Any dervin et al - Self does not die ( all veridical - verifiable cases)
Pim van lommel - consciousness does not die. ( analytical ruling out other medical hypotheses, stats)
Many others besides eg neuro surgeon Alexander,
These are serious medical experts.

So consciousness is not just a function of the brain, and is more and more considered as only filtered by brain. Like the robot vehicle whose telemetry , cpu , or memory can blow ( brain) - the vehicle can eg lose right side function and or memory - the equivalent of a stroke, but the guiding intelligence ( consciousness ) operating controls is still intact.
there are various factors leading to that conclusion - not Just veridical nde.
- like the large number of areas of brain involved in simple tasks and no appsrent function coordinating them ( theres a medical neurology term describing that question - I forget it’s name)
- and where is the seat of memory in the Brain? van lommel describes the problem and why present assumptions don’t add up, implying memory is also outside the brain.
. Study van lommel.

van lommel cross references the Medical knowledge and other medical views About it.

What survives death is therefore consciousness, is the essence of life.
So assuming that , then life is not just chemistry , no chemical process can account for life.


Which is what Christian’s have always believed.

Thanks.
Have you looked beyond NDE experiences for ideas about consciousness? As a persons in the Catholic tradition you have deep spiritual resources available to you.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think it's reasonable to statecan opinion
as a fact? I call it " just saying things".
In other contexts its perjury or fraud.

You appear to take the side that there's
no problem with stating opinion as fact.

Is that the case?

Thus we circle back to messy science.

 

[Estrid]

Thus we circle back to messy science.

A yes or no would have sufficed long ago.

But but never mind, reticence speaks its own language.

 

[Ophiolite]

I’ve no idea who Hume is. Nor do I care

Here are some of the remarks you made to and about me earlier.

You clearly know little about science or philosophy of science when you said this:

And as for “ explain” you clearly do not understand the philosophical implication of “ explain” At all.

You Are clearly not a scientist. you should Study science philosophy

And yet you do not know who David Hume is. That is astounding. You had the audacity to lecture me on philosophy while being ignorant of one of the world's most important philosophers. You have lost all credibility. Next you'll be telling me you don't know Thomas Kuhn or Bertrand Russell or Soren Kierkegaard. And worse, that you don't care who they are.
Goodbye.

 

[Estrid]

Here are some of the remarks you made to and about me earlier.







And yet you do not know who David Hume is. That is astounding. You had the audacity to lecture me on philosophy while being ignorant of one of the world's most important philosophers. You have lost all credibility. Next you'll be telling me you don't know Thomas Kuhn or Bertrand Russell or Soren Kierkegaard. And worse, that you don't care who they are.
Goodbye.

Just now lost it? Such patience!

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks.
Have you looked beyond NDE experiences for ideas about consciousness? As a persons in the Catholic tradition you have deep spiritual resources available to you.

Of course there are a lot of anecdotal examples , but I separate what I believe, from what I have some evidence for , from where there Is evidence that should make sceptics question what they believe in forums like this.
Eg NDE.

one example for you…

Take some of the mystics have fascinating stories..A bed ridden immobile peasant - Anne catherine emmerich.
Describes a house where Mary lived near Ephesus . The building was unusual . The view was unique in terms of describing islands, the sea, river, with Ephesus on the horizon.

Using only the description she gave, a search party beat their way through undergrowth , on a remote mountain, which was the only place they believed such a view could gave been seen ( long before Google earth or even detailed maps).

They found a tumble down ruin, reclaimed by the forest,
it was only when it was excavated down, they discovered below the unusual shapes that Anne Catherine described, on a footing with building clearly modified later in history. No present visitor could have seen it as she did without digging, so nobody could have told her that.

conclusion?
Her consciousness had seemingly moved through space and time To see it as it was, not as it is.
proof ? No. Evidence ? Yes.

Out of interest on NDE such as Eben Alexander speak of time passing completely diferently in his other workd.

 

[Mountainmike]

Here are some of the remarks you made to and about me earlier.







And yet you do not know who David Hume is. That is astounding. You had the audacity to lecture me on philosophy while being ignorant of one of the world's most important philosophers. You have lost all credibility. Next you'll be telling me you don't know Thomas Kuhn or Bertrand Russell or Soren Kierkegaard. And worse, that you don't care who they are.
Goodbye.

If you cant take it, don’t give it. I get sneered at in every post.
Tell me what your experience of science is?

I demonstrated how evidence normally leads, so if Hume thinks ALL hypothesis can precede evidence , he has a time arrow and causality problem.

The only hypothesis that can precede evidence is a model extrapolaton, eg higgs boson, or gravity wave.
but that is the less frequented road.

Evidence normally leads, a hypothesis only comes later.
-marie curies foggy film.
- the unexpected track in a bubble chamber.

One you won’t know is curie also noticed a pale blue light from radium solutions in a dark room.
Thats The evidence.

Only decades later did Cherenkov hypothesise why. Electrons travelling faster than speed of light in water.

There was a lot of “ noticing “ of planet movements before there were enough records to hypothesise a planar solar system. Till then there were just planet charts. Evidence.

etc etc.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you cant take it, don’t give it. I get insulted in every post.
Tell me what your experience of science is?

I demonstrated how evidence leads, so if Hume thinks all hypothesis can precede evidence , he has a time arrow and causality problem.
The only hypothesis that can precede evidence is a model extrapolaton, eg higgs boson, or gravity wave.
but that is the less frequented road.

Evidence normally leads, a hypothesis only comes later.

There was a lot of “ noticing “ of planet movements before there were enough records to hypothesise a planar solar system. Till then there were just planet charts. Evidence.

I can assure you that in geology observations preceded hypotheses (plenty of speculation though) and then became evidence for, or against, such hypotheses. The first century of "real" geology was little more than observations.

Mike, someone who presents themselves as knowledgeable about philosophy and berates another for their ignorance of it, then reveals there own profound ignorance in that field has lost credibility. Perhaps my goodbye was not clear enough. I do not discuss matters with such people.

I shan't be viewing any further posts from you.

 

[Bradskii]

As for evolution you still have not defined your term sufficiently .

I'm not asking you to discuss evolution. But here's something from Britannica:

'All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.'

If you don't agree with that, I don't want to know why. I don't want to to critique it. I want to know what your alternative is.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I want to know what your alternative is.

You keep asking…

Evidence for Extreme Human Antiquity

 

[Bradskii]

You keep asking…

Evidence for Extreme Human Antiquity

Sorry, John. An hour long vid just doesn't cut it.