Pure metaphysical claims

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

Code-Monkey said:
[rant]
I don't understand people's obsession with the scientific method. I'm not suggesting that David is obsessed with it, but there certainly is an implication here that perhaps a large or significant part of our knowledge comes from the scientific method, or at the very least that only sort of the "reliable" parts come from using it. Again, I would challenge anyone to try to write down all the claims of truth that they believed in a single day, and then to write down how many of those claims were verified by using the scientific method. I don't mean that you heard Bob proved evolution and that he used the scientific method, because if you believe that then you have definitely not used the scientific method. At the very best you can perform the experiments yourself. But even then you're likely relying on evidence that you're unable to verify or validate.[/rant]

But there's still the issue that a claim that you wore a hat yesterday cannot be tested by the scientific method. And further, the claim that gravity will continue to work in the future as it has in the past is not a testable claim.

It can, actually. It cannot be proved by the scientific method, but nothing can be - that is not what the scientific method does.

For example, I work in parliament house. There are cameras here. These could be checked.

Assuming I did not work in parliament house, there are cameras in many places I travel when I go to and from work each day.

There are also eyewitnesses, who can be subjected to lie detector tests. I can be subjected to an eyewitness test. My hair can be examined for minute traces of material that can then be tested to determine if it is in hats. And so on.

No-one would do any of this to test such a claim, of course, as it is not worth the effort. But it is possible to use the scientific method to test the claim, 'I wore a hat yesterday.'

I suppose my simple answer to your OP is that when you understand the methodology of how you judge the truth of a claim as to whether or not someone wore a hat, then you'll understand how someone judges the truth of a claim about other things as well.

I know how people judge the truth of such claims - it usually boils down to two things:

1.) Whether they care.
2.) Whether they trust the person making the claim.

However, how people judge the truth of claims is not what I am concerned with.

What I am concerned with is whether there is a method that I can go through to test metaphysical claims, assuming that they are claims I care about and that both are made from people whom I trust equally - or that do not come from any person I know at all, but are given to me anonomously.

In other words, removing personalities from the claims, how can I test them?

We cannot use the scientific method to test them, as they are metaphysical. What other method can we use? Your rant was about people relying on the scientific method for determining truth. What other methods do we have?

wondererr · Mar 13, 2006

nice cat.

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

wondererr said:
nice cat.

His name is Che.

Code-Monkey · Mar 13, 2006

David Gould said:
It can, actually. It cannot be proved by the scientific method, but nothing can be - that is not what the scientific method does.

For example, I work in parliament house. There are cameras here. These could be checked.

Assuming I did not work in parliament house, there are cameras in many places I travel when I go to and from work each day.

There are also eyewitnesses, who can be subjected to lie detector tests. I can be subjected to an eyewitness test. My hair can be examined for minute traces of material that can then be tested to determine if it is in hats. And so on.

That's great stuff if we can acknowledge first that the pictures can't be doctored, that eyewitnesses always tell the truth and that a machine will absolutely know if someone lied, etc...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The bottom line (as I see it) is that under every claim of the physical is a claim of the metaphysical.

You can run tests to see if certain things are consistent with the notion of you wearing the hat. That doesn't literally tell us if you truly did or not. But that still ignores the fact that all of this testing has not and will not be done. So saying that "it could be" ignores the fact that well over 99% of the time it is not. So my question is why do you believe those claims 99% of the time?

And it appears that your answer is...

David Gould said:
1.) Whether they care.
2.) Whether they trust the person making the claim.

However, how people judge the truth of claims is not what I am concerned with.

What I am concerned with is whether there is a method that I can go through to test metaphysical claims, assuming that they are claims I care about and that both are made from people whom I trust equally - or that do not come from any person I know at all, but are given to me anonomously.

If you have 100 eye witnesses that say you wore the hat, another 5 eye witnesses that you did not wear the hat, there is hair of yours in the hat, and tapes that appear like you're wearing them but also appear as they may have been tampered with... then we're sort of in a bind with this physical claim. We're still in the same boat of having to use inductive reasoning and using the evidence that we have at hand.

David Gould said:
In other words, removing personalities from the claims, how can I test them?

We cannot use the scientific method to test them, as they are metaphysical. What other method can we use? Your rant was about people relying on the scientific method for determining truth. What other methods do we have?

My rant was that we seem to manage quite well at not using the scientific method for 99% of the time of determining truth. So the scientific method doesn't seem to be all that valuable of a tool. I'll say it's thorough, but simply too costly. And it ultimately relies on ideas that are themselves non-physical.

But to your question. How do we determine whether or not a soul literally exists, whether heaven or hell exists, and so forth. For these claims, like many others, we seem to use inductive logic. Christianity has a number of those sorts of claims. Other claims were very physical, such as Jesus being crucified, Jesus rising from the dead, feeding thousands with a few loaves, healing lepers, blind men, crippled men, etc...

I do know a lot of non-christians who have said that if Jesus really did rise from the dead as the gospel story suggests, then that's more or less proof that he was who he said he was. Again, I think it's just consistent with how we determine the truth of other claims. If Bob tells me that he can effect the stock market and he predicts perfectly the stocks as they go up and down for a month, then most people would begin to suspect there's something to his claim. If Bob claims that an apple will fall if he drops it, and 10 times out of 10 times it falls, then people begin to suspect there's something to his claim. If Bob claims that he can control the wind and the forces of nature and the wind blows or stops at his command, then people begin to think there's something to his claim.

And I would say that people use inductive reasoning when evaluating those claims. If Bob claims that he is the one causing the apple to fall, and then Jane drops the apple and it falls, then some might question Bob's claim. If Jesus and other prophets of God claimed special powers granted by God and nobody else can reproduce those acts, then it's more rational to believe the claim that the powers were given to them by God.

Do you think God is more likely to be real if the claims about what Jesus physically did are true?

I'm sort of curious how many "pure metaphysical claims" christianity has. Should a person who saw the risen Christ believe his metaphysical claim that he is the son of God? Should a person who saw the red sea part believe the claim that there is a God who wanted to save Israel during their exodus?

I am curious though... you believe that we are not actually conscious, right? You believe it's an illusion. So since that appears to be a metaphysical claim, why do you believe it?

Code-Monkey · Mar 13, 2006

Is a mathematical claim, such as 3+4=7 considered metaphysical as it isn't based upon the physical but simply on logic?

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

Code-Monkey said:
Is a mathematical claim, such as 3+4=7 considered metaphysical as it isn't based upon the physical but simply on logic?

I consider mathematics to be very much based on the physical. In other words, maths arose as a result of observation of the world. The numbers 1, 2, 3 et cetera are abstract representations of physical things. We can use the scientific method (induction) to check to see whether 3+4 = 7. Every single time we have checked, it has turned out to be the case.

However, even if they were considered to be metaphysical claims, some metaphysical claims can be evaluated using logic. For example, we can discard illogical metaphysical claims. We can also accept claims that are logically necessary - I discussed this in another thread, and forget to bring that bit into this thread.

This mathematical claim is logically necessary.

However, logically possible claims that are not logically necessary cannot be evaluated by logic.

I guess, then, that my thesis would be modified to be:

Any logically possible claim that cannot be evaluted using the scientific method and that is not logically necessary (or has not been demonstrated to be logically necessary) can and should be discarded/ignored/have judgment suspended on/considered provisionally false.

Thanks for the catch.

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

Code-Monkey said:
That's great stuff if we can acknowledge first that the pictures can't be doctored, that eyewitnesses always tell the truth and that a machine will absolutely know if someone lied, etc...

Um, science is never about proof - it is about evidence.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. The bottom line (as I see it) is that under every claim of the physical is a claim of the metaphysical.

And I do not see this. My definition of a metaphysical claim is, 'A claim not able to be evaluated using the scientific method.'

You can run tests to see if certain things are consistent with the notion of you wearing the hat. That doesn't literally tell us if you truly did or not.

And the scientific method does not do that, so that is besides the point.

But that still ignores the fact that all of this testing has not and will not be done. So saying that "it could be" ignores the fact that well over 99% of the time it is not. So my question is why do you believe those claims 99% of the time?

And it appears that your answer is...

Yes. And that is not the point of this thread. It is not about how humans come to believe the things they do. It is about how they should come to believe the things they do. In other words, we shouldn't believe important things just because a trustworthy person tells us that such and such is the case - we should test the important things.

How do we do that? We have the scientific method, and we have logic.

What do we do with claims that are not susceptible to the scientific method and which logic has gone as far as it can?

That is the question I am asking, and to which I do not think there is an answer.

If you have 100 eye witnesses that say you wore the hat, another 5 eye witnesses that you did not wear the hat, there is hair of yours in the hat, and tapes that appear like you're wearing them but also appear as they may have been tampered with... then we're sort of in a bind with this physical claim. We're still in the same boat of having to use inductive reasoning and using the evidence that we have at hand.

Science is all about evidence and inductive reasoning - that is the scientific method. It has nothing to do with proving claims.

My rant was that we seem to manage quite well at not using the scientific method for 99% of the time of determining truth. So the scientific method doesn't seem to be all that valuable of a tool. I'll say it's thorough, but simply too costly. And it ultimately relies on ideas that are themselves non-physical.

I think that we manage quite well not using the scientific method to test claims because the claims made are not that important. In other words, if someone claims that plate tectonic theory is wrong how much impact would that have on your life or mine? Not much at all.

If I claimed I wore a hat yesterday, how much impact would that have on your life (or mine?)? Not much at all.

In other words, not using the scientific method works because the claims that we accept or reject are not significant. We can get through our lives being wrong about millions and millions of things and not even notice that we were in fact wrong.

But to your question. How do we determine whether or not a soul literally exists, whether heaven or hell exists, and so forth. For these claims, like many others, we seem to use inductive logic. Christianity has a number of those sorts of claims. Other claims were very physical, such as Jesus being crucified, Jesus rising from the dead, feeding thousands with a few loaves, healing lepers, blind men, crippled men, etc...

I do not think we use inductive logic. I think we tend to believe what people who we trust tell us. There are some people - a very small minority - who examine their beliefs and search for evidence that they are true.

I will answer the rest in a little while.

Dexx · Mar 13, 2006

David Gould said:
I define metaphysical claims as those claims which cannot be tested using the scientific method.

I think alot of this is semantics. Anything that exists can be tested by the scientific method. But there are constraints. The subject of the test must be present (right place, right time). A method must exist to record this presence (correct instruments).

Think about all the TV shows that have supernatural themes: buffy, charmed, supernatural, etc. Human literature and entertainment is full of examples of supernatural/metaphysical things. Usually the theme they present could be tested scientifically if you are in the right place and if you have the right gear.

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

Metaphysical means beyond the physical. In other words, a vampire would not be beyond the physical - it can be punched, for example.

A ghost that can be seen is not beyond the physical - light interacts with it.

And so on.

The existence of hell is a metaphysical claim - unless there is a physical means of getting there, or seeing it, or something like that.

However, if that is the claim, then that makes all religions amenable to scientific testing - something I do not mind. All it means is that I have not understood the claims.

Niels · Mar 13, 2006

David Gould said:
The existence of hell is a metaphysical claim - unless there is a physical means of getting there, or seeing it, or something like that.

However, if that is the claim, then that makes all religions amenable to scientific testing - something I do not mind. All it means is that I have not understood the claims.

I agree that the existence of heaven and hell are metaphysical claims. As far as belief in their existence is concerned, I tie it in with having faith in Jesus Christ. Without Christ, I'd subscribe to what essentially amounts to Spinoza's Pantheism. If I put my trust in Christ, that he is in fact the physical aspect of God (the universe, everything) incarnate in man, then what I know of the existence in heaven and hell is a matter of taking his word for it.

Code-Monkey · Mar 13, 2006

David Gould said:
I guess, then, that my thesis would be modified to be:

Any logically possible claim that cannot be evaluted using the scientific method and that is not logically necessary (or has not been demonstrated to be logically necessary) can and should be discarded/ignored/have judgment suspended on/considered provisionally false.

So then... let me ask the obvious question. Is this claim you're making either logically necessary or is it possible to be evaluated by the scientific method? And then if not, of course you're suggesting that we can and should either discard/ignore/suspend judgement on/consider it to be provisionally false.

When you say that we can and should do this or that, are you implying that we have a choice in the matter or that we could have done otherwise?

David Gould · Mar 13, 2006

Code-Monkey said:
So then... let me ask the obvious question. Is this claim you're making either logically necessary or is it possible to be evaluated by the scientific method? And then if not, of course you're suggesting that we can and should either discard/ignore/suspend judgement on/consider it to be provisionally false.

Logically necessary. If we do not have a method to determine whether something is true or false, discarding/ignoring it/suspending judgment of it are the only options we have. I put in 'consider it to be provisionally false' because the scientific method requires us to discard things for which there is no evidence. As there is no method to evaluate these claims, there can be no evidence for them.

When you say that we can and should do this or that, are you implying that we have a choice in the matter or that we could have done otherwise?

We cannot choose our beliefs. However, arguments can alter our beliefs. New information informs behaviour - because there is no free will.

Code-Monkey · Mar 14, 2006

David Gould said:
Logically necessary. If we do not have a method to determine whether something is true or false, discarding/ignoring it/suspending judgment of it are the only options we have. I put in 'consider it to be provisionally false' because the scientific method requires us to discard things for which there is no evidence. As there is no method to evaluate these claims, there can be no evidence for them.

A few more thoughts...

1. Clearly we can agree that when we deal with things outside of mathematics and deductive logic, then we no longer have proof. Right? right, you've already acknowledged that. So why don't we stick with saying that mathematics and deductive logic is how we determine something to be true or not? Clearly mathematics would discard the idea of whether or not you wore a hat yesterday as mathematics and deductive logic can't tell you for sure. I suspect you feel like you're saying something of value when you suggest that science discards non-scientific claims and since some claims, particularly religious ones, fall under that category that they are somehow lesser claims. But I'll point out that we discard nearly all scientific claims when we use mathematics as our standard of truth as mathematics simply doesn't deal with the physical, it only deals with the logical.

2. Why do you arbitrarily suggest that without physical evidence that we should consider a claim to be provisionally false. A claim is either going to be true or false. So why would you arbitrarily pick one as the default? Without evidence you should provisionally say that you don't know if the claim is true or false, you should not pick a side and say that it's more likely to be that than the other.

3. You didn't explain why the truth of your claim is logically necessary. You simply said that there has to be some reason for determining truth so it must be the scientific method. Why? And how did people come by the truth before the invention of the scientific method? Does this mean we should arbitrarily throw away every claim before the scientific method was first formalized?

David Gould said:
We cannot choose our beliefs. However, arguments can alter our beliefs. New information informs behaviour - because there is no free will.

Well, let's take your claim that there is no free will for example. You're making that claim. Now by your theory, I should not accept your claim unless it can be verified via the scientific method or unless it's logically necessary. So how do we test your belief via the scientific method? I would offer that we can test free will scientifically by putting someone in nearly identical circumstances and asking them to pick a number. If they pick different numbers then it appears we may have come up with scientific evidence using the scientific method supporting free will. Yes, if anything, free will is backed by the scientific method, by physical evidence, and so forth. The counter claim that free will is an illusion has to deny the physical evidence and doesn't itself offer any scientific experiments backing it's claim. So I'm not sure why you would back down on your system of belief when it comes to free will.

If you cannot choose your belief, then there's no rational reason why I should think that your belief is any more correct than mine. If we don't choose our beliefs, rather they are forced upon us, then the same nature that forces your belief also forces my belief. There would of course be different circumstances to cause the differences just as nature one day causes rain and another day causes drought. But there's no rational basis for judging nature to be correct or incorrect in either case. Because of that, I will suggest that free will is logically necessary. Hmm.. so there seems to be 2 separate lines of argument for free will (the scientific method that shows that yes people can and do act randomly and freely and the logical necessity of it required for intelligent creatures).

David Gould · Mar 14, 2006

Code-Monkey said:
A few more thoughts...

1. Clearly we can agree that when we deal with things outside of mathematics and deductive logic, then we no longer have proof. Right? right, you've already acknowledged that. So why don't we stick with saying that mathematics and deductive logic is how we determine something to be true or not? Clearly mathematics would discard the idea of whether or not you wore a hat yesterday as mathematics and deductive logic can't tell you for sure. I suspect you feel like you're saying something of value when you suggest that science discards non-scientific claims and since some claims, particularly religious ones, fall under that category that they are somehow lesser claims. But I'll point out that we discard nearly all scientific claims when we use mathematics as our standard of truth as mathematics simply doesn't deal with the physical, it only deals with the logical.

You are missing what I am saying. I am saying that there exist, to my knowledge, only two methods of evaluating claims. Neither of these two methods are able to evaluate metaphysical claims.

So: what I am looking for is another method. So far, no-one has presented me with another method. Until they do, I am stuck - I cannot evaluate metaphysical claims.

So: do you have a method whereby you evaluate metaphysical claims? If so, what is it?

2. Why do you arbitrarily suggest that without physical evidence that we should consider a claim to be provisionally false. A claim is either going to be true or false. So why would you arbitrarily pick one as the default? Without evidence you should provisionally say that you don't know if the claim is true or false, you should not pick a side and say that it's more likely to be that than the other.

I do not arbitrarily suggest one. We cannot evaluate the claim using science or logic. However, we can examine the fact that we cannot evaluate the claim and draw conclusions from that - using science and logic.

Until you - or somebody else - suggest another method for evaluating things, I have no option but to use science and logic.

And as science rejects claims without evidence for them, and there can be no evidence of any kind for a metaphysical claim if we do not have a method of evaluating metaphysical claims, the conclusion the scientific method would have us draw is that all such claims are provisionally false - in other words, they should be considered to be false until someone presents us with a method for evaluating them.

3. You didn't explain why the truth of your claim is logically necessary. You simply said that there has to be some reason for determining truth so it must be the scientific method. Why? And how did people come by the truth before the invention of the scientific method? Does this mean we should arbitrarily throw away every claim before the scientific method was first formalized?

Um, no. I did not say that there has to be some reason for determining truth so it must be the scientific method.

What I said was: the only two methods we have for evaluating claims are logic and the scientific method. Until someone - anyone - can present me with an alternative method, those are the only two methods I can use.

In other words, I cannot use methods I do not have.

Guess what? We have been discarding claims made prior to the development of the scientific method, although not arbitrarily - we have been testing them, if they are testable. That is why we now know things that we did not know.

Well, let's take your claim that there is no free will for example. You're making that claim. Now by your theory, I should not accept your claim unless it can be verified via the scientific method or unless it's logically necessary. So how do we test your belief via the scientific method?

We are doing it all the time. Genetics, statistical analysis, neurobiology, evolutionary science and psychology are demonstrating that we do not have free will. And so is logic.

In other words, I do not claim that free will is logically necessary or that the lack of free will is logically necessary.

However, given that they are mutually exclusive claims, if only one of them is logically possible, the other one must be true.

In other words, if free will is a logical impossibility, the claim, 'We have no free will,' must be true.

I do not want to turn this into a thread on free will, so I will not bother presenting the arguments here - I have done so on many occassions. All I am showing here is that I am not being inconsistent - the only methods I am using are logic and science.

I would offer that we can test free will scientifically by putting someone in nearly identical circumstances and asking them to pick a number. If they pick different numbers then it appears we may have come up with scientific evidence using the scientific method supporting free will.

Sorry - 'nearly identical circumstances' does not cut it.

Yes, if anything, free will is backed by the scientific method, by physical evidence, and so forth. The counter claim that free will is an illusion has to deny the physical evidence and doesn't itself offer any scientific experiments backing it's claim. So I'm not sure why you would back down on your system of belief when it comes to free will.

I am not backing down on my system of belief when it comes to free will. The evidence and arguments are on my side - and, even if they were not (for example, assume I am in error about the logical argument - it contains a flaw - and that I am in error about the science - I have not read enough) I am still using logic and the scientific method to evaluate my beliefs. I would just be using them poorly.

If you cannot choose your belief, then there's no rational reason why I should think that your belief is any more correct than mine. If we don't choose our beliefs, rather they are forced upon us, then the same nature that forces your belief also forces my belief. There would of course be different circumstances to cause the differences just as nature one day causes rain and another day causes drought. But there's no rational basis for judging nature to be correct or incorrect in either case. Because of that, I will suggest that free will is logically necessary. Hmm.. so there seems to be 2 separate lines of argument for free will (the scientific method that shows that yes people can and do act randomly and freely and the logical necessity of it required for intelligent creatures).

That is not an argument for free will - it is an argument against it. With free will, logical arguments would never convince anyone of anything - we can choose our beliefs, and so logical arguments are completely redundant. Without free will, logical arguments at least have a chance of getting through the rest of the clutter and forcing our beliefs to change.

But this argument regarding free will is besides the point - which ever of us is right, we are still both attempting to use the scientific method and logic to evaluate the claims.

This whole thread is about asking whether there is any other method for evaluating claims.

David Gould · Mar 14, 2006

Okay, with regard to the question of the resurrection and so on and whether that is evidence for the truth of Jesus's claims, in the terms of science and logic, no, it is not. In human terms, obviously we are far more likely to believe someone who has been truthful in the past. We are also far more likely to believe that someone is a supernatural being if he has what appear to us to be supernatural powers.

However, this is not a methodology - this is simply human nature.

Just as Hitler presenting a claim is not a logical or scientific reason to reject that claim, so too Jesus making claim is not a logical or scientific reason to accept that claim.

In other words, if I, David, had witnessed the resurrection, I might well believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and hence all his other claims. But I would have no logical or scientific reason to do so - I would not be using any other methodology either, except my feelings.

Are feelings a methodology? If they are a methodology, are they a useful methodology?

With regard to truthful people and people we consider to be good, what we need to know when they make a claim is the methodology they used to evaluate that claim. In other words, if Jesus says, 'I am the Son of God' we should ask him how he knows that.

After all, I accept that the man who I call dad is my father, because it does not matter to me whether genetically he is my father or not.

But I have a method for determining whether he is or not if I ever wish to find out.

What method did Jesus use to determine that God was his father? How does he know that God exists?

I should again point out here that I would likely believe the whole deal if I saw Jesus resurrect - that is human nature. But that is not a good methodology. Or do you claim that it is?

Niels · Mar 14, 2006

David Gould said:
With free will, logical arguments would never convince anyone of anything - we can choose our beliefs, and so logical arguments are completely redundant. Without free will, logical arguments at least have a chance of getting through the rest of the clutter and forcing our beliefs to change.

Would you find it terribly contradictory for an individual to have both free will and to not have free will? Something about the way you explain it here brings to mind the debate between nature and nurture... of which our actions appear to be the result of a dynamic tension between the two.

David Gould said:
This whole thread is about asking whether there is any other method for evaluating claims.

This is just a random suggestion, and possibly a little too 'all over the map' but you might try to explore metaphysics at its source. It can be argued that the metaphysical is a natural off-shoot of language. Looking into the dynamics behind the meaning-making process, you may uncover more about the linguistics at work behind the 'demonic' and such. Or perhaps at least appreciate the mythos from a new angle. Language deals with many things that which are not... such as your breakfast last week, the accident you didn't have on the way to work etc. Unfortunately, it's not a giant leap to proceed from these simple examples to speaking of profoundly improbable things which are also not actually available for us to analyze. As the metaphysical does not provide us with sense-data, it might behoove you to further explore the subtle mechanisms behind this 'non-sense'. Then compare how well these dynamics align with your personal experience with such phenomena. As such, may gain a better grasp of distinguishing between levels of improbability, and thus make some headway evaluating the metaphysical.

To fellow Christians who may be scratching their heads in dismay: it can also be argued that we were created through language (1 John 1:1), perhaps even that God is language... and how some messages are corrupted. Just something to chew on.

Code-Monkey · Mar 15, 2006

I'm sorry I don't have time to properly respond, so this is going to be quite short.

I believe I understand what you are saying -- I just find your claim to be very lacking.

The reason I bring up free will is that you are making a claim that you believe is supported both by logic and by science. You are claiming that both of these tools have allowed you and allow everyone to verify that claim that free will does not exist. And yet we both happen to think that science and logic are on our own side. So it is clear to me that we are not dealing with precisive methods, that "logic and science" have not led us to the same results.

I do want to clarify that we're both using inductive logic, not deductive logic. But, as Hume suggested, nearly everything we "know" is based upon inductive logic.

David Gould said:
We cannot evaluate the claim using science or logic. However, we can examine the fact that we cannot evaluate the claim and draw conclusions from that - using science and logic.

And as science rejects claims without evidence for them, and there can be no evidence of any kind for a metaphysical claim if we do not have a method of evaluating metaphysical claims, the conclusion the scientific method would have us draw is that all such claims are provisionally false - in other words, they should be considered to be false until someone presents us with a method for evaluating them.

Actually, science does not work that way. A scientist should (if he is being true to science) reserve judgement on a claim unless he has been able to scientifically test that claim as best as possible. Science does not suggest or imply that God does not exist on the basis that it can't physically test God as it can test things in the universe. It's this sort of foolishness that leads strife between religious groups and scientific groups. If people understood science better, then that sort of nonsensical thinking would not occur as often.

And logic, especially deductive logic, certiainly does not throw out a claim if it doesn't have all the facts. Here's an example:

x + y = 7.

I'll claim y = 5. Logic most certainly does not suggest that we should lean towards saying that answer if false.

David Gould said:
Sorry - 'nearly identical circumstances' does not cut it.

This is rather harmful to your opinion that scientists have been conducting experiments and reducing the notion of free will. If nearly identical circumstances works for one group, it works for the other. All science works on nearly identical circumstances. If you think it shouldn't, then you should drop science as an "approved method of finding out the truth" as that's the very premise behind forming experiments.

David Gould said:
But this argument regarding free will is besides the point - which ever of us is right, we are still both attempting to use the scientific method and logic to evaluate the claims.

This more or less illustrates my point. We both believe we are using science and inductive logic to come to a conclusion about free will. As there is a truth to free will and our claims are mutually exclusive, then logically "science and logic" has failed at least one of us or one of us has failed science and logic. We both definitely agree we can rely on deductive logic. Implicitly, we both agree that we can rely (somewhat) on inductive logic. My argument is simply that we use inductive logic for virtually everything we believe in. And it is by use of inductive logic that we try to come by the truth.

In short -- inductive reasoning is what we use to try to come to the truth, whether it's the truth about something physical, spiritiual, mental, metaphysical, or anything else.

Received · Mar 24, 2006

I'm not even sure if "truth" is an appropriate word to use in reference to metaphysical claims, given that metaphyiscal claims cannot be proven to be the case. Metaphysics is the realm of theoretical consideration of what holds the universe together; therefore any theories espoused will be pragmatically based. Given that pragmatism is individiaulistic -- what is pragmatic for you is not pragmatic for me, whether or not we're talking about an issue we have agreeing points on -- what makes something "true" is what works, what fits, what negates any potential ruffling of feathers, with regard to one's worldview. Hence, it is equally true that non-Moslems and non-Christians go to Hell -- but only relative to the theological (metaphysical) beliefs that each particular group believes.

Just as morality is relative to one's values, so metaphyiscal theory is relative to one's metaphysical beliefs.

elman · Mar 27, 2006

Received said:
I'm not even sure if "truth" is an appropriate word to use in reference to metaphysical claims, given that metaphyiscal claims cannot be proven to be the case. Metaphysics is the realm of theoretical consideration of what holds the universe together; therefore any theories espoused will be pragmatically based. Given that pragmatism is individiaulistic -- what is pragmatic for you is not pragmatic for me, whether or not we're talking about an issue we have agreeing points on -- what makes something "true" is what works, what fits, what negates any potential ruffling of feathers, with regard to one's worldview. Hence, it is equally true that non-Moslems and non-Christians go to Hell -- but only relative to the theological (metaphysical) beliefs that each particular group believes.

Just as morality is relative to one's values, so metaphyiscal theory is relative to one's metaphysical beliefs.

Truth and morality are not relative. Our perception of truth and morality is.

quatona · Mar 27, 2006

elman said:
Truth and morality are not relative. Our perception of truth and morality is.

And since truth and morality are but our concepts, ideas and terms, there isn´t much left to discuss but our perception.

Pure metaphysical claims

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

wondererr

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Code-Monkey

Guest

Code-Monkey

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Woodshedding

Code-Monkey

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Code-Monkey

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Woodshedding

Code-Monkey

Guest

True love waits in haunted attics

elman

"God"? What do you mean??

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency