Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Opdrey]

No evidence? Other than Eucharistic miracles you mean?

Let me try this. See if this helps explain things better.

I have experience of working in the lab and writing articles for publication. I and my coworkers once did an extensive study of the surface chemistry of a particular material. We wrote up the results and found evidence for "X". We published it and it made it through peer review. So you would think we were "RIGHT". It had evidence for "X" and others reviewed it and found it compelling enough to allow it to be published in a real journal.

Three years later another group of researchers were looking at the same material and realized that there was another possible explanation for "X" which we had failed to account for.

So do you see that simply because something was PUBLISHED doesn't necessarily mean that it is PROVEN?

And if you think quantum reality is just conjecture about the math, you are mistaken.

No I am not.

It challenges the very framework of existence. How can a single thing pass down two separate paths? Does it even exist till observed? These are fundamental questions!

And that is exactly what they are: questions.

I suggest you read something like “ through two doors at once

Dude, I'm sorry. I've actually read quite a bit on Quantum and I've had training in the sciences on quantum. Yes, a lot of it is "shut up and calculate", but that's fine. It works that way quite effectively. I don't need to know why the double slit experiment works as it does in order to use Quantum. But by the same token it does not mean that there aren't still "fundamental questions". And these remain questions.

The problem of determining what is real underlying phenomena is no surprise to those who have studied the philosophy of science, and what it is possible to know, ie metaphysics.

Rather than metaphysics, why don't we talk EPISTEMOLOGY for a bit. I'm an empiricist by training. As such there is a fundamental limit to empiricism. I assume you have read Hume extensively. If one were to take Hume's explanation to its logical conclusion one realizes that effectively no one can "know" anything at all.

The empiricist says we have to have direct experience of an event. If I flip a light switch and light comes on it does NOT provide me with direct experience of the event. It could be just random chance that it happens. I can do it a million times and I have NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that there is a necessary causal connection between the two events. NONE.

What I do have is what science provides: a likely hypothesis. The more I flip the switch and the light comes on the more likely it is that there is a connection. But I am NEVER 100% certain. NEVER.

I will propose that a book describing anecdotes about OBE's is just a flip of that switch.

The switch is flipped 2 times and you reject the null hypothesis. I require many many more flips of the switch than you do.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Opdrey]

Are you a scientist? if so, what discipline?

Yes. Chemist and Geologist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Chemist and Geologist.

I take it you're familiar with the 1984 bioterror attack in Wasco County?

 

[Mountainmike]

I didn’t dispute it. The need to sometimes reevaluate.
You questioned whether there was evidence. Eucharistic miracles are evidence.

As for flips of the switch. You are constrained by the universe.
also that consciousness is experiential. It’s easier to research things that you can repeat or things that do repeat.

It is Not always possible. In extremis: - The book “Twin telepathy “ notes many examples of a twin sensing the death of the other.

You are not in control of the time or the place and a controlled trial on that would put you on death row! You are too used to testing “things” not beings.

The fact that some experiences relate verifiable events that are way past the possibility of coincidence and unexplained is certainly evidence, even if they can’t be repeated.

One that intrigues me is the finding and excavation of panaghia capouli.

A building was located in the middle of nowhere , just from a vision that cannot have been experienced by the bedridden peasant who described it.
The kicker is the building was described as it was 2000 years ago. It was partly buried, partly rebuilt on ancient foundation. It was only after excavation , that some of the visionary detail was confirmed. So nobody else could have described it to the visionary!

Quantum reality is useful for mind games In trying to decide what it is possible to know.

Let me try this. See if this helps explain things better.

I have experience of working in the lab and writing articles for publication. I and my coworkers once did an extensive study of the surface chemistry of a particular material. We wrote up the results and found evidence for "X". We published it and it made it through peer review. So you would think we were "RIGHT". It had evidence for "X" and others reviewed it and found it compelling enough to allow it to be published in a real journal.

Three years later another group of researchers were looking at the same material and realized that there was another possible explanation for "X" which we had failed to account for.

So do you see that simply because something was PUBLISHED doesn't necessarily mean that it is PROVEN?



No I am not.



And that is exactly what they are: questions.



Dude, I'm sorry. I've actually read quite a bit on Quantum and I've had training in the sciences on quantum. Yes, a lot of it is "shut up and calculate", but that's fine. It works that way quite effectively. I don't need to know why the double slit experiment works as it does in order to use Quantum. But by the same token it does not mean that there aren't still "fundamental questions". And these remain questions.



Rather than metaphysics, why don't we talk EPISTEMOLOGY for a bit. I'm an empiricist by training. As such there is a fundamental limit to empiricism. I assume you have read Hume extensively. If one were to take Hume's explanation to its logical conclusion one realizes that effectively no one can "know" anything at all.

The empiricist says we have to have direct experience of an event. If I flip a light switch and light comes on it does NOT provide me with direct experience of the event. It could be just random chance that it happens. I can do it a million times and I have NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that there is a necessary causal connection between the two events. NONE.

What I do have is what science provides: a likely hypothesis. The more I flip the switch and the light comes on the more likely it is that there is a connection. But I am NEVER 100% certain. NEVER.

I will propose that a book describing anecdotes about OBE's is just a flip of that switch.

The switch is flipped 2 times and you reject the null hypothesis. I require many many more flips of the switch than you do.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Opdrey]

As for flips of the switch. You are constrained by the universe.

We are both constrained by the universe. But only one of us accepts that constraint.

A building was located in the middle of nowhere , just from a vision that cannot have been experienced by the bedridden peasant who described it.

When I was growing up my neighbor's dad owned a bookstore. His dad really loved reading magazines about "Fortean phenomena". It was always fun to go hang out and read some of these magazines and watch movies about evidence for Bigfoot, evidence for UFO's, evidence for ghosts. All the funky things. And there were a LOT of them floating around. Story after story after story. If you take them all together there are mutually exclusive realities being described.

Reading your posts is kind of like that experience. You are a cornucopia of miracle stories. Just like my friend's dad.

In many ways reading your posts makes me nostalgic for that time. I was a kid and all things were possible and if someone wrote it somewhere it had the ring of truth! Unquestioned truth.

 

[Opdrey]

I take it you're familiar with the 1984 bioterror attack in Wasco County?

Yes. Quite. There's a great documentary about that ("Wild Country") and I currently live in the Pacific Northwest.

Religious cult goes nuts, takes vengeance on the Dalles. Maybe they thought they had a "right" to control that part of Oregon? Have you read about a small band of people in the Levant who invaded an area and killed off the inhabitants because they felt they had a religious right to that land?

 

[Mountainmike]

You do love straw men comparisons. X is a fake, so Y must be , when there is no comparison between x and y, and y actually has evidence.
Critical thinking is good instead.

You could actually research just one of the phenomena and discover the problem for accounting for it.

The difference between us ? I make judgements AFTER studying evidence, not judgements based on apriori prejudice.

The abandoned overgrown ruin of panaghia capouli really was found on a remote turkey hillside , 10k from the nearest significant track, just from the view of sea and islands described by a visionary. It is the only place compatible with the bedridden visionaries statements who had never left Belgium . It was found long before google earth or even detailed maps. It was only after excavation they discovered the foundation shape she described. How do you account for it? “ Coincidence” said Einstein , was “God’s way of staying anonymous.”

I am constrained by the universe, you seem to think the model IS the universe! You live in the matrix!
I think you should go back to a book like “ science before science “ by Rizzi ( professor of quantum physics) . Who goes back to the fundamental underpinning of what science actually IS.

We are both constrained by the universe. But only one of us accepts that constraint.



When I was growing up my neighbor's dad owned a bookstore. His dad really loved reading magazines about "Fortean phenomena". It was always fun to go hang out and read some of these magazines and watch movies about evidence for Bigfoot, evidence for UFO's, evidence for ghosts. All the funky things. And there were a LOT of them floating around. Story after story after story. If you take them all together there are mutually exclusive realities being described.

Reading your posts is kind of like that experience. You are a cornucopia of miracle stories. Just like my friend's dad.

In many ways reading your posts makes me nostalgic for that time. I was a kid and all things were possible and if someone wrote it somewhere it had the ring of truth! Unquestioned truth.

 

[Opdrey]

You do love straw men comparisons.

Why do you automatically dismiss people's points? I'm just curious. I'm actually trying to have a conversation but all you ever do is make decrees that my points are flawed.

X is a fake, so Y must be , when there is no comparison between x and y, and y actually has evidence.
Critical thinking is good instead.

You honestly don't seem to understand what I've been posting.

The difference between us ? I make judgements AFTER studying evidence, not judgements based on apriori prejudice.

The difference is you feel a need to make a judgement.

I'm willing to wait for more data.

 

[Mountainmike]

You dismissed the OBE case & panaghia capouli by using a sweeping generalisation that compared them to Bigfoot and ufos. It is a straw man. You do not have a “point” to dismiss other than apriori rebuttal using false comparison.

You have volunteered no opinion on why Eucharistic miracle researchers saw the evidence they did, to explain it away as a natural phenomenon, likening to an even worse straw man of Ganesh! I don’t see any comparison.

Comment on specific cases.

You still haven’t told me which camp of quantum reality you ascribe to and why? I’m genuinely curious to see how you have reconciled the clear problems of the nature of reality observed in quantum phemonena.

Why do you automatically dismiss people's points? I'm just curious. I'm actually trying to have a conversation but all you ever do is make decrees that my points are flawed.



You honestly don't seem to understand what I've been posting.



The difference is you feel a need to make a judgement.

I'm willing to wait for more data.

 

[Opdrey]

You dismissed the OBE case & panaghia capouli by using a sweeping generalisation that compared them to Bigfoot and ufos. It is a straw man.

As you wish.

You do not have a “point” to dismiss other than apriori rebuttal using false comparison.

You simply choose to ignore the effort I put in to respond to your points. It is clear you don't like to actually converse but you want people to simply accept that which you have accepted.

That isn't how science works.

You have volunteered no opinion on why Eucharistic miracle researchers saw the evidence they did, to explain it away as a natural phenomenon, likening to an even worse straw man of Ganesh! I don’t see any comparison.

Incorrect.

You still haven’t told me which camp of quantum reality you ascribe to and why?

Because it doesn't matter.

I’m genuinely curious to see how you have reconciled the clear problems of the nature of reality observed in quantum phemonena.

Why would I try to "reconcile" that which no one has been able to reconcile? I'm sure you have a firm opinion on what is right in quantum. Which means you probably don't actually much understand quantum. You just have your opinions.

I have tried REPEATEDLY to explain this to you. You are not listening and instead are simply choosing to decree everyone else's thought to be less than your own.

Good for you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The abandoned overgrown ruin of panaghia capouli really was found on a remote turkey hillside , 10k from the nearest significant track, just from the view of sea and islands described by a visionary. It is the only place compatible with the bedridden visionaries statements who had never left Belgium . It was found long before google earth or even detailed maps. It was only after excavation they discovered the foundation shape she described. How do you account for it? “ Coincidence” said Einstein , was “God’s way of staying anonymous.”

My attorney, Lionel Hutz, will be contacting you shortly about the injury I suffered (whiplash) reading your post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Quite. There's a great documentary about that ("Wild Country") and I currently live in the Pacific Northwest.

Just wondering if that had anything to do with your journey/search.

Religious cult goes nuts, takes vengeance on the Dalles. Maybe they thought they had a "right" to control that part of Oregon?

They were wrong, weren't they?

Have you read about a small band of people in the Levant who invaded an area and killed off the inhabitants because they felt they had a religious right to that land?

Was that the "small" [sic] band that was going home after 430 years of captivity?

The ones that some harlot said ...

Joshua 2:9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

Those squatters had 430 years to vacate the land given them via the Abrahamic Covenant.

Instead, they did just the opposite.

Vide quoque: Post 128

 

[Opdrey]

Just wondering if that had anything to do with your journey/search.

Not a thing.

They were wrong, weren't they?Was that the "small" [sic] band that was going home after 430 years of captivity?

Per the Bible. Archaeology finds little evidence of the Jews being the primary residents of Caanan prior to their overtaking the lands. They were a small tribe in the highlands as I understand it and they gradually moved down into larger Caanan and violently displaced the original inhabitants. And it is entirely plausible their version of "God" evolved with their society!

In fact there's scarce if any evidence for the massive Jewish slave population in Egypt. Yes Egypt had slaves and probably some Israelite slaves. But, again, there is little if any evidence outside the bible that I am aware of of the Exodus. Not even evidence in the Sinai of a large mass of people wandering for years.

People who write the history always write their people as the winners. The ones justified. I can gladly accept that the Egyptians themselves would never record the Exodus because it would be recording a massive failure for them. But shouldn't there be SOME physical evidence somewhere?

Taking the Bible at face value is fine for the faithful. If the Bible is viewed as just another ancient document it still has immense value but it doesn't need to be inerrant and perfected truth. It can be taken for the book of amazing stories and sometimes histories and many times fascinating insight into human behavior and all that. All without any necessity to explain away the fact that David is reported in the Bible to visit cities that didn't exist until many many years later. One no longer needs to square the circle of two jarringly different genealogies of Jesus. It doesn't have to explain away stories of the sun stopping in the sky or virgins giving birth. It doesn't have to do any of that. And it doesn't cheapen its value.

You have faith that the Bible is inerrant truth. I lack that faith. We can both still find immense value in the Bible (I know I do!) but I am not beholden as you are to the literal truth of every passage.

Does that make sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

We can both still find immense value in the Bible ...

So I notice:

... a small band of people in the Levant who invaded an area and killed off the inhabitants because they felt they had a religious right to that land?

Perhaps that's why God preserved history in writing, knowing that academians would falsely accuse the Jews of this?

After all, if not for the Bible, we Christians wouldn't be able to defend their actions, would we?

QV: Post 315

 

[Opdrey]

So I noticeerhaps that's why God preserved history in writing,

Claim provided without support.

After all, if not for the Bible, we Christians wouldn't be able to defend their actions, would we?

Remember, religious texts of other religions defend the actions of the faithful in those religions.

The only difference is everyone else is wrong and only you are right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claim provided without support.

So it's okay to bring claims up when they support genocide, invasion, or murder; but bring it up to defend against those accusations gets stamped: WITHOUT SUPPORT?

At least my standards allow for science to be real -- even uplifting science to a height that atheists won't go.

 

[Opdrey]

So it's okay to bring claims up when they support genocide, invasion, or murder; but bring it up to defend against those accusations gets stamped: WITHOUT SUPPORT?

Can you clarify this point?

At least my standards allow for science to be real -- even uplifting science to a height that atheists won't go.

Please stop saying you are "uplifting" science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With respect @FrumiousBandersnatch , I did.
Not lazy at all.
I suggested two books as starters.

Yeah, we've been over the evidential value of those books. It would be helpful if you could post the direct quotes & passages from which the claims you've posted have come - preferably a scan of the relevant pages. If not that, then the relevant references to published papers that describe what the relevant experts actually found.

A good evidential book should provide references to all the papers and articles it uses to make its case. I'm currently reading 'The Righteous Mind' by Jonathan Haidt (highly recommended), which has detailed footnotes for every chapter with a complete reference appendix for all the relevant material used.

 

[Neogaia777]

Is science at odds with philosophy...?

I guess it depends on whether you consider philosophy to be a religion or not, etc...?

Because it seems to have just as many, and maybe even if not even more, "contradictions", in it, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How can a single thing pass down two separate paths? Does it even exist till observed?

As before, it's fundamentally wave-like. It clearly exists before it is observed because it shows interference - that's what the double-slit experiment is about.

The problem of determining what is “real” that underlies phenomena is no surprise to those who have studied the philosophy of science, and what it is possible to know about the universe ie metaphysics.

For pragmatic purposes, what is real is what has demonstrable effect on the world. Everything else is moot.

It’s a problem you don’t seem to have grappled with. Most of the leading lights of quantum theory certainly have, and as Carroll points out, it is embarrassing there is no consensus at all. There is also no easy answer, to what is “ real”

That's not really the problem. The mathematical formalism represents the behaviour of what is 'real'. The interpretations or formulations are metaphors for it. There's no reason to suppose we can know the 'true' nature of reality - wasn't it you that brought up Kant's noumena?