Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fair enough.Stop it Steve. I mentioned the thing (type 1 v. type 2 errors) and said we should move on because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (or even whatever it is I am discussing with you now). It is merely an explanation of how a tendency to apply unwarranted agency to natural phenomena can arise through natural selection. There is no need to discuss it more. LET'S MOVE ON.
Thats the point I am making. That the science method in saying theres no evidence that consciousness is beyond brain and therefore consciousness is a epiphenomena of the physical brain is claiming that the only way we can know consciousness is by measuring it in quantifiable terms.Wrong. Science "claims" that there is no evidence of anything else and leaves the question open.
For most consciousness is that something of self, an essence or spirit that lives on beyond the physical similar to the soul. So in that sense all Christians and even non Christians believe in the soul and life after death.Nor does Christian doctrine require that our consciousness can exist without a brain. Why do you think Christians assert their belief in the resurrection of the body?
If we as a society are moving on from God then we are moving towards some replacement. The innate need to believe cannot be left empty. Its like food. If we stop eating salads in the west we will have the need to eat something else even if its bad for us because of our innate sense of hunger.Without doubt.
If we reject God. But are we doing that? Or are we just moving on from your theology? Whether the results are good or bad is a matter of opinion.
I disgree. In you saying that consciousness is only a result of the physical brain and those who believe its something beyond are unreal and deluded you are making an ontological claim about the reality of consciousness.Science is examining natural phenomena with natural experimental apparatuses and methods and coming to conclusions about the possible natural explanations. That is all -- n
othing more, nothing less.
Thats right, its not allowed so after some time its forgotton about or not even relevant, The science method is a paradigm so it comes with a set of rules and principles that dictate the language that can be used, what questions can be ask and how things can be determined. Epistemically it restricts how we can know things and excludes others before any investigation has taken place.You are projecting. This has no bearing on the reality of scientific inquiry. I have had regular, frequent, and intense conversations on science with other scientists for 25+ years and we NEVER talk about supernatural causation EVER.
I though the science method can be used to refute the supernatural and in doing so renders it unreal and made up or psudoscience. That is using science to discount the supernatural.Applying the results of science to a conclusion about the supernatural IS NOT SCIENCE, nor part of science. It is "philosophy".
But those scientists who do believe in the supernatural are philosophical about the place of science. They understand that the science is only telling them about a certain aspect of reality and its certainly not the everything.YES WE CAN. We do it everyday and every time. The MAJORITY of scientists believe in some sort of supernatural thing and they use methodological naturalism for their research EVERY DAY. It is so common we just don't even need to talk about it amongst ourselves. By insisting otherwise you are just plain wrong about something you clearly don't have any personal experience of. That is a clue that you should stop.
You are once again attributing more certainty to science than it claims for itself.Thats the point I am making. That the science method in saying theres no evidence that consciousness is beyond brain and therefore consciousness is a epiphenomena of the physical brain is claiming that the only way we can know consciousness is by measuring it in quantifiable terms.
That only empiricle evidence counts and all else is rejected beforehand. It is assumed beforehand that consciousness is a physical phenomena when ultimately it doesn't really know. So the question is not left open ultimately because its discounted all other ways of knowing about consciousness and reality as a priori.
For most consciousness is that something of self, an essence or spirit that lives on beyond the physical similar to the soul. So in that sense all Christians and even non Christians believe in the soul and life after death.
I have said no such thing in this conversation. I did not bring up or discuss "consciousness". (Instead I have ignored your prior attempts to bring it up. We went around before, there is not point doing it again.)I disgree. In you saying that consciousness is only a result of the physical brain and those who believe its something beyond are unreal and deluded you are making an ontological claim about the reality of consciousness.
Scientists that study conscious work with brains, but that is not the topic of this conversation or thread.Rather you or any person using the science method should be saying that the science method is only measuring a certain aspect of reality in quantified terms. Its limited in its method and therefore cannot say whether consciousness can be something beyond brain or not. That would therefore leave the question truely open.
Sure we can. We do it all the time. Just because you don't (and given your incredulity, I suspect that you don't) doesn't mean the we don't.But people don't. They cannot help but stand on the claim as fact and the only true measure of reality and therefore are dismissing all other ways of knowling. Thats because we cannot seperate the philosopher from the science, the observer doing the measurement from what they are measuring.
Doing good so far. Science does natural things.Thats right, its not allowed so after some time its forgotton about or not even relevant, The science method is a paradigm so it comes with a set of rules and principles that dictate the language that can be used, what questions can be ask and how things can be determined.
Science doesn't try to explain everything.Epistemically it restricts how we can know things and excludes others before any investigation has taken place.
Whoa there pal. Science makes no such claim.This is opposed to other paradigms like reality beyond the physical which would require a different set of language, questions and measuring methods. But science will claim that the science method trumps all other ways of knowing because its the only way to know reality.
Science doesn't deal in metaphysics (nor do I).Whereas say someone who supports consciousness beyond brain may also support quantified reality as part of the equation but with limits. But the same cannot be said for the science method which is fair enough. So long as they are not claiming its the only reality we can know. But it seems the way the paradigm works they are forced to make it the only reality metaphysically.
If someone makes a supernatural claim about an effect happening in the real world it might be testable. Many such claims have been made over the years and some supernatural claims have failed.I though the science method can be used to refute the supernatural and in doing so renders it unreal and made up or psudoscience. That is using science to discount the supernatural.
I have no idea. Why don't you ask one. Assuming won't inform you at all.But those scientists who do believe in the supernatural are philosophical about the place of science. They understand that the science is only telling them about a certain aspect of reality and its certainly not the everything.
Oh good grief, no. As I said in the text you were responding to. The supernatural and god beliefs just don't come up in professional scientific conversations. They are irrelevant since science doesn't study them. There are scientists I have known for 15, 20, 25 years whose religious positions I don't know (and who don't know mine). (Let me rephrase that, almost *none* of them known mine, nor I theirs. It just isn't a scientifically relevant bit of information.)They are the very example of how we cannot seperate the science from philosophy in that they are open to more than just the science method to know reality. In fact I would say that they actually believe that reality is fundementally supernatural and not quantified.
Actually its the person using science who is overstating sciences certainty. Science is a methology created by humans, the scientist. The human behind science method uses it to dimiss consciousness beyond brain as being unreal and a delusion. Even the literature on it states this when it says that consciousness arose as a byproduct of physical processes such as the combination of complex neural correlations.You are once again attributing more certainty to science than it claims for itself.
So I did a search for your comments about consciousness and forgot to search this thread only but rather all comments came up so I checked those as well.I have said no such thing in this conversation. I did not bring up or discuss "consciousness". (Instead I have ignored your prior attempts to bring it up. We went around before, there is not point doing it again.)
Scientists also study what consciousness represents beyond brains as a fundemental aspect of reality. It is relevant I think because it feeds back to my point that humans are intuitive and innate believers of such concepts about mind and body duality, life after death, the soul and a creative and moral agent.Scientists that study conscious work with brains, but that is not the topic of this conversation or thread.
Not when it comes to people using science to refute all other ways of knowing. You do it all the time in dismissing all other possibilities because they don't conform to the pre assumed criteria that physical reality is the only reality.Sure we can. We do it all the time. Just because you don't (and given your incredulity, I suspect that you don't) doesn't mean the we don't.
I agree science is good at quantifying the physical aspect of reality. But reality is so much more than that. If science kept to its lane it would be ok. But it doesn't. Well at least the subject using it doesn't.Doing good so far. Science does natural things.
I agree but when people use it to dismiss other ways of knowing as unreal its claiming to know everything. Or atleast claiming that the only way to know everything is by methological naturalism.Science doesn't try to explain everything.
Sorry I meant to say the methodology and the scientist using it. The methodology assums the only measure for reality is naturalism and physicalism. When someone uses science to refute any alternative ways of knowing reality then they are claiming that methological naturalism is the only way we can measure and know reality.Whoa there pal. Science makes no such claim.
Thats right because it has ruled it out before any invesigation has begun as to what reality actually is. But in some ways it does dabble in metaphysics by proposing that there is actually 'matter' outside our heads, outside our minds that is real. Yet we cannot get outside our minds to directly check if this is the case.Science doesn't deal in metaphysics (nor do I).
Its not so much that these supernatural or transcendent phenomena are testable through the science method. But that the scientific paradigm itself is wrong, doesn't look for the right type of evidence, asks the wrong questions and that a completely different paradigm is needed to even begin to measure supernatural phenomena.If someone makes a supernatural claim about an effect happening in the real world it might be testable. Many such claims have been made over the years and some supernatural claims have failed.
You don't need to ask them as its common sense and logical. If they believe in God or supernatural possibilities then they must also believe that methological naturalism and naturalism are but one aspect and not the be all and end all of what reality actually is. Otherwise they cut off their own belief in the reality of something beyond the physical.I have no idea. Why don't you ask one. Assuming won't inform you at all.
Well of course as in the course of working with scientists and doing that particular dicipline its not relevant. In fact its not allowed to be considered as a priori. The rules governing the method have factored out supernaturalism and belief.Oh good grief, no. As I said in the text you were responding to. The supernatural and god beliefs just don't come up in professional scientific conversations. They are irrelevant since science doesn't study them. There are scientists I have known for 15, 20, 25 years whose religious positions I don't know (and who don't know mine). (Let me rephrase that, almost *none* of them known mine, nor I theirs. It just isn't a scientifically relevant bit of information.)
Common sense is a *HORRIBLE* methodology for solving complex problems and dealing with unknowns. "Common sense" leads to a large number of demonstrably false conclusions. It is not how science works and it is not a path to "truth" or understanding. If you want to know the state of things -- GET SOME DATA! (Don't make it up in your head and call it "common sense.)You don't need to ask them as its common sense and logical.
Again, if you want to know how actual scientists working in science deal with their supernatural beliefs go find some and ask them. I believe they have whole organizations of such. (There are several on this site, but I am not going to tag them as I wish to remain on friendly grounds with them and they don't deserve this conversation.)If they believe in God or supernatural possibilities then they must also believe that methological naturalism and naturalism are but one aspect and not the be all and end all of what reality actually is. Otherwise they cut off their own belief in the reality of something beyond the physical.
Well of course as in the course of working with scientists and doing that particular dicipline its not relevant. In fact its not allowed to be considered as a priori. The rules governing the method have factored out supernaturalism and belief.
But if you were to get to know the scientists outside this parameter then they may speak of their beliefs in the supernatural. So the practice of science is contained in a compartment of life which has its own rules and language ect.
But what tends to happen because science especially the hard sciences like physics, biology, neurology and biology will often be closely related to telling us about fundemental reality such as the Higs Boson or DNA, proteins, chemicals that are about bringing into being the objective world.
At this point its very close to metaphysics and its a small step to claiming that science is actually telling us about what is, an ontological position about what ultimately is fundemental reality. That its contained within the causal closure of the physical and therefore no supernaturalism is required.
Thats why I think its hard to seperate philosophy from the sciences because in some cases the issue is so close to the big questions in life that we cannot take oursleves out of the equation. We tend to not just see the world in quantified measurements but we also attach meaning at the same time.
Well my common sense and logic was based on the data. The studies and research into how humans think. But it all doesn't just come down to science. There is no science for belief. Belief happens despite the science. My point was also one of logic which does not need any scientific evidence but is self evidenced.This whole sub-thread is off the rails and I am not going to indulge it anymore.
We were in a fruitless conversation about the nature of science and it had come up that the majority of scientists have some sort of supernatural claim and you made some claims about how that impacts their work (and by implication impacts the rest of us) and then I suggested if you wanted to know you should *ask* such a scientist about it. Instead you just rejected empirical (or even anecdotal) data as a source for making conclusions and wrote this (THIS!):
Common sense is a *HORRIBLE* methodology for solving complex problems and dealing with unknowns. "Common sense" leads to a large number of demonstrably false conclusions. It is not how science works and it is not a path to "truth" or understanding. If you want to know the state of things -- GET SOME DATA! (Don't make it up in your head and call it "common sense.)
The point wasn't about what exactly are their supernatural beliefs but rather than these are people who can hold more than one position about reality. Which I might add is probably the position of the majority of Christians. This is opposed to scientists and others who take a purely physical or material position about reality.Again, if you want to know how actual scientists working in science deal with their supernatural beliefs go find some and ask them. I believe they have whole organizations of such. (There are several on this site, but I am not going to tag them as I wish to remain on friendly grounds with them and they don't deserve this conversation.)
No that is your reading. Lets examine what I actually wrote rather than your personalised version.In response to my *factual statement* that in a quarter century of scientific conversations that we did not discuss the supernatural or supernatural causation, you then wrote the following filled with what are effectively accusations of code switching and rule enforcement.
No I am not speaking of scientists as scientists within their diciplines but as humans beings. Scientists are not immune to be human, to being subject to human natural ways of thinking and believing. Science within the paradigms of how humans see the world and how we can know reality is but one position in the overall scheme of what is reality. In that sense its a social construction about reality and not science.(Also included in previous posts.) You seem to lack understanding of positions you do not hold and you keep projecting your own positions and opinion onto others. In this case scientists.
Well my common sense and logic was based on the data.
Paul Harvey, not Hardy.Just came across this video which I think is sort of relevant to this thread lol. Its a piece from some radio journalist Paul Hardy and its called 'If I were the Devil' in 1966. Some say its like a prophesy about where society was heading in the future based on where it was at in 1966 and the trends that were occuring at the time.
It actually has some pretty spot on predictions and describes todays society pretty much to how things have turned out. In the video Joe Rogan is reacting to how these predictions are so accurate lol.
You have jumped to conclusions here and are going on about something I have not even said or was thinking. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to read and think about what I said.It wasn't based on data about scientists. That's my point and don't care how many times you cite that "tendency to belief" literature. I ALREADY KNOW THAT. It is *precisely* those scientists (the ones with supernatural beliefs) that we had mentioned. Their supernatural beliefs are so IRRELEVANT to the practice of science that I don't know which ones they are among the scientists I have worked with, interacted with, or done combat with for a quarter century. (The few I do know about their religious beliefs are because we have social relationships, but not even all of those.) The only "scientists" that I have ever seen clearly influenced by their religious beliefs work as shiny baubles from the likes of AiG, DI, CMI, etc.
You clearly have no practical experience with the practice of science, so I would appreciate it if you stopped telling me how my profession works. (I have quoted the parts of your post I read carefully. I see you quoted Kuhn, a sure sign you are grasping for straws. No one in science feel any obligation to do thing because of Kuhn.)
Thanks for the correction.Paul Harvey, not Hardy.
I think the type of scare mongering that Harvey is doing seems to be a repeated theme over and over. As the video mentioned C.S.Lewis was saying something similar in the 40's and another author G. K. Chesterton writing in 1926 in a London paper talking about the way society was headed.No problem. Every generation has its right-wing, scare mongering commentator. Paul Harvey happens to be mine,
Sex again.This is spot on for how Post Modern society is rejecting facts and objective reality, the science for feelings and self referential truths and reality such as identity rather than bodily reality.
Particularly the toxic mythology of Western Christian Culture.We see in the universities especially in the Humanities where everything is being questioned and dismantled including our own history and long held facts and truths we have learned about the world.
I stopped reading what you wrote. It is offtopic and much of what you write is wrong.You have jumped to conclusions here and are going on about something I have not even said or was thinking. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to read and think about what I said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?