Demons, the scientific method.

[Myshkin99]

AV, you have real talent. That mind of yours comes up with the most entertaining notions. It's always a joy to check into CF to see what sense, nonsense, or senselessness you're up to. Occasionally I even agree with you, which is a nice bonus. If you ever wrote a book, I'd buy it.

Here's to you! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and may you accumulate another 200,000 or so posts in 2012.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you have real talent. That mind of yours comes up with the most entertaining notions. It's always a joy to check into CF to see what sense, nonsense, or senselessness you're up to. Occasionally I even agree with you, which is a nice bonus. If you ever wrote a book, I'd buy it.

-- Why, thank you very much! I appreciate the sentiment!

It's nice to know I don't turn everyone away!

Here's to you! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and may you accumulate another 200,000 or so posts in 2012.

Thank you! And the same to you, my friend.

I'm gonna try at another 200,000, but the fact is, I'm teetering on the edge of being escorted out of here -- if you know what I'm saying.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So you think Jesus was more like our Good Conscience, then,....




1) Lucifer = The Pleasure Principle = Id
2) Satan = Physical Drives = Libido
3) Mammon = The Aggressive Drive = Ego
4) Devil = Feminine principle of Intuition = Anima
5) Baalzebub = The Reality Principle = Self
6) False Prophet = The Logical/Mathematical Mind = Superego
7) False Shepherd = Psychic Balance = Harmony

Actually you may have missed the point. I was attempting to show how AV's stance on science is akin to someone who pays lipservice to christianity while missing the most important bits.

 

[Tiberius]

Geez, can you ever get a point, AV? Or do you deliberately misunderstand what I say?

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Geez, can you ever get a point, AV? Or do you deliberately misunderstand what I say?

The chances of anyone succeeding in convincing AV to embrace science from a non-Biblical context is less than the chances of you or I winning the lottery this week.

But I like AV. The forum would not be as fun without him around. He is extremely entertaining. Personally, I think he could be compared to that eccentric uncle everyone loves, but constantly says zany things that makes most of us roll their eyes.

Even though I don't think there is a God, If there is indeed some deity out there, then God bless you AV. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[AV1611VET]

The chances of anyone succeeding in convincing AV to embrace science from a non-Biblical context is less than the chances of you or I winning the lottery this week.

And this is where you [guys] misunderstand me.

Here -- let me show you how you should have said it:

The chances of anyone succeeding in convincing AV to embrace science from an anti-Biblical context is less than the chances of you or I winning the lottery this week.

Those who know me, know that I embrace 95% of science, and even consider scientists as a gift from God (compliments of what we call the 'gift of knowledge' [1 Corinthians 12:8]).

I can ask my wife if we're having galliforms for supper, and she knows exactly what I'm asking.

 

[Tiberius]

And this is where you [guys] misunderstand me.

Here -- let me show you how you should have said it:

Those who know me, know that I embrace 95% of science, and even consider scientists as a gift from God (compliments of what we call the 'gift of knowledge' [1 Corinthians 12:8]).

Once again you don't seem to get it.

There is nothing in science that is "anti-Biblical". Science is not out to prove the Bible wrong. All it does is examine reality, and let the evidence speak for itself. If you think that this make science "anti Biblical", then it's not science's fault.

 

[Ayersy]

Can you prove demons with the scientific methods?

For instance if i give a shark human blood, will that shark be able to make himself visible as a human as the sorcerers tape the shark and send him up to land?

Uh. Wow.

What sorcerers do you speak of? I looked in the yellow pages for some, and I couldn't find any.

 

[Davian]

What does one iota of that have to do with money wasted on an LHC, SETI, or any other scientific endeavor that ends up not being cost-justified?

Is that what you would tell the government?

"Hey, Senator, I want to look for unobtainium, but I need funding to build an Unobtainium Obtainer. Can you help?"

"What do you mean, 'No'? Don't you use a computer? And I'll bet you've had your life saved at least once by modern medicine!"

"What do you mean, 'So?' ...

AV, are you able to prophesize the avenue of scientific endeavours currently in the works that will produce future benefits that you will judge to be acceptable and cost-justified?

 

[Matariki]

No, you cannot prove the metaphysical or supernatural using science.
Science deals primarily with what exists physically within the laws of nature.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Examples: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science.

Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

Examples: Philosophy, Religion, Human Reasoning, Morals, Spirituality.

Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Examples: God, Satan, Demons, Angels.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

No, you cannot prove the metaphysical or supernatural using science.
Science deals primarily with what exists physically within the laws of nature.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Examples: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science.

Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

Examples: Philosophy, Religion, Human Reasoning, Morals, Spirituality.

Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Examples: God, Satan, Demons, Angels.

Perhaps you could explain how Meta and super are both somehow immune from the simple acts of The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Cause I certainly dont see how they could be.

There's a super natural pixie like creature in my mail box, I can go make the observation, identify it as a pixie, describe its pretty wings, investigate what the heck it is and finally come up with an explaination down the lines of pixies have been hidding in mailboxes.

I'm confused how simply declaring x, y and z are above and beyond our understanding makes it so, especially given that we have never found any of that to be true.

 

[jonmichael818]

No, you cannot prove the metaphysical or supernatural using science.
Science deals primarily with what exists physically within the laws of nature.

Yes, This is true.

 

[Matariki]

Perhaps you could explain how Meta and super are both somehow immune from the simple acts of The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Cause I certainly dont see how they could be.

There's a super natural pixie like creature in my mail box, I can go make the observation, identify it as a pixie, describe its pretty wings, investigate what the heck it is and finally come up with an explaination down the lines of pixies have been hidding in mailboxes.

I'm confused how simply declaring x, y and z are above and beyond our understanding makes it so, especially given that we have never found any of that to be true.

You probably already know this but I'm posting this more for the OP's knowledge:

Five things science cannot explain:

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

Five Things Science Can’t Explain « Power to Change

 

[AV1611VET]

You probably already know this but I'm posting this more for the OP's knowledge:

-- You make a post like this, and you call yourself 'young and dumb'?

 

[Tiberius]

Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Why? because you don't understand it, or because science can't explain it? (or both?)

 

[Tiberius]

Because it depends solely on subjective opinions rather objective facts and is thus different for everyone. And if it is different for everyone, then it can't be a truth about the universe, just about the person.

For example, science can't prove that your spouse loves you. Yet I';ve seen several examples of a man who is convinced that his wife loves him, while she's out arranging for a hitman to kill him. This proves that such "experiential truth" may not be true at all. It is unreliable.

 

[Farinata]

Five things science cannot explain:

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about the role of science. Science isn't in the proof industry. Science looks at collections of evidence and attempts to discover likely hypotheses (which can then be tested by further empiricism). As such, scientific truth is really a misnomer. But even with that clarification there's a few things that can be said about the five listed categories.

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

In a certain sense I agree with this. To really get anywhere in an objective paradigm (e.g. science) certain axiomatic assumptions must be made. However, this doesn't mean that speaking about these existential 'truths' in scientific terms need be vacuous. Take for example Nick Bostrom's simulation argument.

ww.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

This is an example where we can actually say with exactitude what assumptions we need to make in order to demonstrate that we live in a simulated universe. With that exception noted, let me say that existential 'truths' might not necessarily be beyond the scope of science in the abstract, but I'm willing to grant that they are for the most part. Showing that I'm not simply a brain in a vat, besides having no reason to believe in it in the first place, is in some sense a meaningless question in that it is unanswerable.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

I disagree with this category being beyond the scope of science. The science of morality has a rich history and is really just coming into its own.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Sam Harris, a famous atheist you might have heard of, recently outlined a basis for morality by placing it in the "well-being of conscious creatures". Now there's no guarantee he's right in that regard but the effort is clearly underway to provide some sort of quantitative backing to why certain actions or policies might be 'good' or 'evil' (useful terms even if they carry certain baggage). My guess is that we'll be able to start saying moral things from a scientific perspective once we start to learn more about human consciousness and neuroscience in the coming decades.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

I think this is conflating two ideas, that of logic and reality. Maybe I'm just not understanding this point but why does science require logic to work? If the universe behaves randomly and chaotically, without order of any kind, that would be borne out by the evidence collected by science. The fact that and that we can make predictions about many things is both interesting and awe-inspiring (not to mention an entirely different debate).

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

This category is well within the scope of science. Remember that science doesn't deal with proofs but instead collections of evidence. "Barack Obama won the 2008 US pres. election". How can I support that claim? I can cite official US govt. records, I can show you old newspapers from both his presidency and the day following election day, I can show you news footage, etc... I marshal a whole host of evidence to show that it is rational to believe Barack Obama won the 2008 US pres. election. The onus is then on the deniers of BO's pres. election victory to show why my evidence is not good and to provide evidence showing he didn't win the 2008 US pres. election.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

Say you were to take a brain scan of someone or measure with precision what neurons are being activated or what neural receptors are being used. If love is a material phenomenon, which I think it is (all the evidence from cognition and neuroscience in the last 30 years has implied that the mind is synonymous with brain; destroy the brain and you destroy everything about yourself), then it's open to scientific measurement. Now that being said, the study of consciousness is a relatively new field of research. It is very much in its infancy and there remains a large amount of work to be done. The brain currently remains a mysterious and complex system but more is being understood everyday. Give neuroscientists 100-150 years and who knows what we'll be able to say about human love.

 

[Matariki]

-- You make a post like this, and you call yourself 'young and dumb'?

Its a long story...
But no, I don't regard myself as having a high level of intelligence.

 

[Matariki]

Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Is that a scientific statement or a philosophical statement?