Is science at odds with philosophy?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Practical quantum physics is done on the basis of “shut up and calculate” . Few stop to think about the questions it begs of what is real.

Sean Carroll calls it the greatest embarrassment in physics that 100 years on from Einstein that his peers cannot agree on any common interpretation. It is not easily dismissed. The fact you may use QM every day doesn’t tell me whether you have consridered the issues that are highlighted by double slit. “Where is it “ before it is observed? Or even “ is it” before it is observed

There are people who've thought about it, and what is not agreed on is the interpretation or formulation, because they're all consistent with the formalism. What is agreed by consensus is that what we see as particles are 'really' waves, i.e. their fundamental nature is wave-like, not particle-like.

If you have studied OBE, then perhaps you might try to explain some of the real paradoxes contained about consciousness? How did people know what they know, but cannot have experienced?
Dismissing anecdotal experience is also dismissing the problem of consciousness for which science has little explanation.

Please give some verifiable examples of such experiences. I've spent a fair amount of time on OBEs and NDEs and never found an example without large holes. Anecdotal evidence of 'exotic' events is generally unreliable - for reasons I've explained previously. The AWARE I and AWARE II studies were well-controlled studies to find just such evidence, but found nothing significant, when statistically, they would have expected to.

 

[partinobodycular]

The philosophical determination of what it is possible to know. What is the connection between observation and underlying reality?

Oooo...now you're in my lane...

 

[Opdrey]

If you have studied OBE, then perhaps you might try to explain some of the real paradoxes contained about consciousness? How did people know what they know, but cannot have experienced?

In much the same way someone who claims that they were abducted by aliens or saw ghosts. I would question the stories. Could there possibly have been any other explanation? Then I'd ask if those who recorded the story got it right?

It's like watching a movie about a haunting in a house. You don't want to immediately disbelieve the people telling the story because that would be unkind, but in a lot of cases it's probably either something else, a misinterpretation of the data or and outright untruth.

That's why I say you are more credulous. Not because you will believe just anything (I assume you don't believe that a stage magician is actually doing magic) but rather because you are unwilling to put something on a shelf and say "I'll just wait for more data".

You want an answer (as everyone does) and you find a book that someone somewhere wrote and you are told this person or that person is of impeccable distinction and you believe.

You are here talking about the philosophy of science. Sometimes the answer is "we don't know.....yet."

We have nearly COUNTLESS examples of where the "supernatural" or "miraculous" turned out to be anything but. Sometimes it was an error of interpretation, sometimes it was a story that got garbled in the re-telling, sometimes it was an outright lie.

If I have 10,000 stories of unexplained phenomena that turned out to be perfectly explicable and 2 stories that I can't explain, which is more rational? That the 2 stories are just things I have not yet seen a perfectly mundane explanation for or that the 2 stories are evidence of a complete world beyond human comprehension and exists outside of space and time?

Are you familiar with the difference between "Strong Atheism" and "Weak Atheism"? "Strong Atheism" says "There is no God!" But that's a philosophically flawed statement. One CANNOT make a universal negative claim like that. "Weak Atheists" say "I fail to find sufficient evidence of God". That's more philosophically robust. It means that maybe one day evidence will accumulate and opinions can change.

In cases of the supernatural and OBE's and miracles I am of the opinion that I fail to see sufficient evidence of these things. Even if there are some that are yet unexplained, we have too many that are explained and turn out to be anything but what they were initially claimed to be.

That is the discipline of science in action. These things may be real. But, as the saying goes: "Astonishing claims requires astonishing levels of evidence".

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the discipline of science in action. These things may be real. But, as the saying goes: "Astonishing claims requires astonishing levels of evidence".

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

 

[Opdrey]

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

May I ask what this has to do with scientific discipline?

The priests and scribes indicted in this verse are an interesting metaphor (I am not yet willing to say that the story is real by any stretch of the imagination given that Matthew wasn't written until something like 50 years after Christ's crucifixion) about belief and a request for proof. Not unlike the story of Doubting Thomas!

Science operates precisely by demanding evidence for the claim.

Obviously the story in Matthew is in support of FAITH. Not science. And thus it really doesn't have any bearing on science which is what I was talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

May I ask what this has to do with scientific discipline?

QV please: Jesus vs Today's Science

 

[SelfSim]

What is the connection between observation and underlying reality?

Oooo...now you're in my lane...

Easy objectively demonstrable answer is: the human mind required to perceive either of them.

 

[Mountainmike]

And that of course is the problem.
Generic dismissals, without reference to specifics.
I elsewhere used the word lazy, because they never relate to study of specific incidents, but are a set of tropes and /or straw man comparisons based on lack of research of the specific incident in question.

So please challenge specific incidents with specific rebuttals.

In the case I quoted , the dirty tie, your witness is a medic, who then researched many others similar. Why do you assume he did not do basic cross checking?

I am no more credulous than you.

Many incidents are inexplicable, except by supposing consciousness elsewhere than in the body. The lady never could have witnessed the dirty tie, or the meeting. Her cortex was shut down for the entire duration.

So what is your alternative explanation for the specific incident I mentioned , other than declaring doctors liars , when they affirm such incidents?

I could go on, there are books full of similar. The witnesses are often medics who you would trust implicitly. It’s the same pattern always. You no doubt trust forensic scientists - until they comment on Eucharistic miracles, only it is that then you don’t trust their judgement!

The universe does not always fit the patterns we are used to.
Why should it? Metaphysics says you cannot know for certain.


You didn’t answer which camp of quantum reality you are in?

In much the same way someone who claims that they were abducted by aliens or saw ghosts. I would question the stories. Could there possibly have been any other explanation? Then I'd ask if those who recorded the story got it right?

It's like watching a movie about a haunting in a house. You don't want to immediately disbelieve the people telling the story because that would be unkind, but in a lot of cases it's probably either something else, a misinterpretation of the data or and outright untruth.

That's why I say you are more credulous. Not because you will believe just anything (I assume you don't believe that a stage magician is actually doing magic) but rather because you are unwilling to put something on a shelf and say "I'll just wait for more data".

You want an answer (as everyone does) and you find a book that someone somewhere wrote and you are told this person or that person is of impeccable distinction and you believe.

You are here talking about the philosophy of science. Sometimes the answer is "we don't know.....yet."

We have nearly COUNTLESS examples of where the "supernatural" or "miraculous" turned out to be anything but. Sometimes it was an error of interpretation, sometimes it was a story that got garbled in the re-telling, sometimes it was an outright lie.

If I have 10,000 stories of unexplained phenomena that turned out to be perfectly explicable and 2 stories that I can't explain, which is more rational? That the 2 stories are just things I have not yet seen a perfectly mundane explanation for or that the 2 stories are evidence of a complete world beyond human comprehension and exists outside of space and time?

Are you familiar with the difference between "Strong Atheism" and "Weak Atheism"? "Strong Atheism" says "There is no God!" But that's a philosophically flawed statement. One CANNOT make a universal negative claim like that. "Weak Atheists" say "I fail to find sufficient evidence of God". That's more philosophically robust. It means that maybe one day evidence will accumulate and opinions can change.

In cases of the supernatural and OBE's and miracles I am of the opinion that I fail to see sufficient evidence of these things. Even if there are some that are yet unexplained, we have too many that are explained and turn out to be anything but what they were initially claimed to be.

That is the discipline of science in action. These things may be real. But, as the saying goes: "Astonishing claims requires astonishing levels of evidence".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And that of course is the problem.
Generic dismissals, without reference to specifics.
I elsewhere used the word lazy, because they never relate to study of specific incidents, but are a set of tropes and /or straw man comparisons based on lack of research of the specific incident in question.

So please challenge specific incidents with specific rebuttals.

If you provide links or references to the incidents you refer to, we can research and make specific comments. So far, you are simply making unverifiable, unsubstantiated assertions and claims. Who is being lazy here?

 

[Opdrey]

So what is your alternative explanation for the specific incident I mentioned , other than declaring doctors liars , when they affirm such incidents?

FIrst off: I never declared the doctors were "liars", I just said that in cases of the supernatural there are always a number of non-supernatural reasons that could explain things. Lying was only one possible explanation.

Here's the key you keep missing, and I have to keep repeating it: I am not saying these things are by definition NOT REAL, just that I fail to be impressed by what I've read (obviously not as much as you have read on this topic), but I am old enough and well-read enough to know that the bookstores are filled to the brim with books written to make one think UFO's exist, ghosts exist, Aliens built the Pyramids and all manner of things.

I also know that these are not scientific studies. They may be written by doctors or good people or whatever.

I also know that the history of the world is one in which miracle after miracle after miracle has been debunked. Ghost story after ghost story after ghost story has been debunked.

So would I take the word of a paperback book (not a scientific study) to alter my views?

I wish I could get one point across to you over any other but apparently no matter how many times I say it is ignored but I'll try again:

You and I have different levels at which we accept supernatural claims.

The witnesses are often medics who you would trust implicitly.

Really? Are medics incapable of error?

It’s the same pattern always. You no doubt trust forensic scientists - until they comment on Eucharistic miracles, only it is that then you don’t trust their judgement!

If a forensic specialist told me that evidence indicated Joe Smith robbed a convenience store that's one thing. If a forensic specialist told me that there exists a realm beyond all space and time in which living cells magically appear in bread out of thin air I'm going to be far more skeptical of the second claim.

You can see the difference, correct?

The universe does not always fit the patterns we are used to.

One pattern I DO know is that humans are easily mistaken and the vast majority of miracles reported are anything but.

You reject the null hypothesis at a much higher p-value than I do.

 

[Opdrey]

QV please: Jesus vs Today's Science

So, nothing. OK. Got it.

What if Charles Darwin rose from the dead and magically caused your dog to evolve into a fish right in front of your eyes? What would you say then?

 

[Mountainmike]

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

One of which is “ after” , by greyson who is credited with the scale that attempts to classify such phenomena.

I gave the first example which got him fascinated : his own patient having conscious awareness of a place and discussion and detail ( like a description of a mark on an unusual necktie) that defied reason. If you look you will find videos of him too.

But I am NOT reproducing chunks of copyrighted works , in breach of that copyright to save anyone ten dollars.

So far : all of @Opdrey s contest of phenomena have been generic tropes and straw man comparisons . Specifics are needed to consider veracity, or rebuttal.

I notice Sagan’s ascientific folly was also invoked “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. That is the antithesis of science. Sagan’s folly was used to raise the bar against things he subjectively did not “like” , and to lower the bar against things he did “like”

All claims need to cross the same bar. That’s science.

Yet With abiogenesis from soup, or say many worlds view of quantum reality, the truly far fetched is accepted without blinking. Neither of those are necessarily false, but there is precious little evidence.


Indeed there is counter evidence. Volcanic vents, cracks and pools have existed for a very long time , more are created all the time across a continuum of history. Yet none of them appear to host the protocells that are conjectured as the path to life. So I am sceptical. The irreducibility problem of complexity needed for evolution will be a very hard nut to crack, if indeed it ever is.

They have far less evidence than so called Eucharistic miracles, or indeed, consciousness outside the body. So which is more extraordinary really?

If you provide links or references to the incidents you refer to, we can research and make specific comments. So far, you are simply making unverifiable, unsubstantiated assertions and claims. Who is being lazy here?

 

[AV1611VET]

... but I am old enough and well-read enough to know that the bookstores are filled to the brim with books written to make one think UFO's exist, ghosts exist, Aliens built the Pyramids and all manner of things.

This parable applies here ...

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

What unbelievers do is just what Jesus said not to do ...

Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

The technical term for that is: "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

God writes the Bible and Satan writes books on UFOs, ghosts, aliens, and pyramids.

Then those who reject the UFOs, ghosts, aliens, and pyramids also reject the Bible for the same reason.

 

[Opdrey]

I notice Sagan’s ascientific folly was also invoked “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. That is the antithesis of science.

Actually it is not. But I have repeatedly attempted to explain how science operates in this matter.

Yet With abiogenesis from soup, or say many worlds view of quantum reality, the truly far fetched is accepted without blinking.

You are 100% wrong.

1) Abiogenesis is the only way to get life without relying on the supernatural. It is a "placeholder" idea. No one yet really knows how it happened, but we have all the pieces of evidence pointing to it and they all conform to regular reality-based chemistry. "Creation Ex Nihilo" by God, on the other hand has exactly ZERO evidence for it.

2) Quantum interpretation (whether the multiverse or Copenhagen or whatever) is all simply conjecture about what the math says. Again, to my knowledge, no one is absolutely 100% certain about what all of it actually means on the macro-scale.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, nothing. OK. Got it.

What if Charles Darwin rose from the dead and magically caused your dog to evolve into a fish right in front of your eyes? What would you say then?

Does it bother you that college-educated unbelievers often appeal to known fiction to defend their unbelief?

 

[Opdrey]

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

What unbelievers do is just what Jesus said not to do ...

So unbelievers are sowing tares in your field of good things? Fair enough. But here's another way to look at it:

YOU and others who know nothing of science and have no real care about the discipline (it's just "funtime" for you, you have nothing invested in it) spread false information about the work of scientists after the scientists have done their best to spread seeds to help feed people, heal people, advance people's lives.

You highlight only the MISTAKES and BAD things and in doing so you elevate the tares and you trample the good wheat.

Maybe YOU are the "enemy".

Now before you blow a gasket or sputter something and go running away here's a key point:

I DO NOT BEGRUDGE YOU YOUR FAITH! You are free and actually encouraged to believe as you will. But that does NOT mean your ex cathedra statements about what is or isn't good in science will go unresponded.

Do you know why I keep citing Luke 6:31? You like to quote the Bible a lot, but the simple stuff seems to evade you.

If you wish to attack science then expect scientists to respond. If you wish to SUPPLANT science with YOUR faith then expect to get some pushback.

I'm not requiring you to learn science, just don't get in the way. If science offends you then just move on.

God writes the Bible and Satan writes books on UFOs, ghosts, aliens, and pyramids.

I think what you mean is that the Bible says Satan writes things you disagree with the interpretation of. The Bible most certainly DOES talk about ghosts and "aliens" (or angels)

1 Samuel 28:11-12 describes a ghost encounter
Ezekiel 10:4 describes angels that sound a lot like modern UFO stories

We are primed to believe in supernatural things by the Bible.

Then those who reject the UFOs, ghosts, aliens, and pyramids also reject the Bible for the same reason.

I'm not sure if there was a typo here or what but it seems to be saying that those who reject what Satan writes also reject the Bible. That may be true, but not necessarily what you might have wanted to say. To be honest I'm still struggling what what you are trying to get across with that point. Don't you reject what Satan writes?

 

[Mountainmike]

Actually it is not. But I have repeatedly attempted to explain how science operates in this matter.



You are 100% wrong.

1) Abiogenesis is the only way to get life without relying on the supernatural. It is a "placeholder" idea. No one yet really knows how it happened, but we have all the pieces of evidence pointing to it and they all conform to regular reality-based chemistry. "Creation Ex Nihilo" by God, on the other hand has exactly ZERO evidence for it.

2) Quantum interpretation (whether the multiverse or Copenhagen or whatever) is all simply conjecture about what the math says. Again, to my knowledge, no one is absolutely 100% certain about what all of it actually means on the macro-scale.

No evidence? Other than Eucharistic miracles you mean?

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

Sure you can ignore the paradoxes and eg calculate orbital structures. Most scientists do “shut up and calculate”

I suggest you read something like “ through two doors at once” it summarises many of the positions . “ quantum reality” baggott - is a book I mentioned before that I like. There are others.

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.

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”

 

[Opdrey]

Does it bother you that college-educated unbelievers often appeal to known fiction to defend their unbelief?

Not sure what you are saying here. Fiction is metaphor at best. I am not particularly aware of people who reject the Bible but put their faith in Stephen King's "The Shining" as a guide to life and the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you wish to attack science then expect scientists to respond.

Are you a scientist? if so, what discipline?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure what you are saying here.

QV this example:

Then I suppose that the fact that Quidditch matches are held all over the world is evidence that Hogwarts is real, right?