Purpose

[JacksBratt]

You're kind of late to the show, there's been a thing called the Popper Revolution. Science no longer confirms or proves anything, they build houses of falsifiable cards, and as long as they stand, the explanation is good. In other words, we have a theory that the material world exists, and it hasn't been shown to be false yet. However, a theory that the spiritual world exists is completely unfalsifiable. A failed supernatural healing, for example, would be explained as due only to a lack of faith.

Sorry, I don't understand.

You say:

"we have a theory that the material world exists, and it hasn't been shown to be false yet"


Then you say:

"However, a theory that the spiritual world exists is completely unfalsifiable."

Am I wrong? Or, are you saying "I have a car, but, you have a car."

 

[Linuxgal]

Sorry, I don't understand.

You say:

"we have a theory that the material world exists, and it hasn't been shown to be false yet"


Then you say:

"However, a theory that the spiritual world exists is completely unfalsifiable."

Am I wrong? Or, are you saying "I have a car, but, you have a car."

Let's try it. You put forward your theory that there is an afterlife, and I will try to falsify it. I wager that in the end, you will fall back on the promises of Jesus and cut off any further inquiry.

 

[Zosimus]

Let's try it. You put forward your theory that there is an afterlife, and I will try to falsify it. I wager that in the end, you will fall back on the promises of Jesus and cut off any further inquiry.

After reminding everyone that I'm agnostic, I'll bite. Here's my opening salvo:

Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - Science - News - The Independent

 

[JacksBratt]

Let's try it. You put forward your theory that there is an afterlife, and I will try to falsify it. I wager that in the end, you will fall back on the promises of Jesus and cut off any further inquiry.

I don't think you understand. I have already stated that I cannot prove that there is an afterlife.

Can you prove that the material world is not just a concept inside of your conciousness? Everything and anything is only real to you and exists no where else but in your mind?

Prove this.

But what if I think that my consciousness is the only thing that exists? Huh?!?
There is no way you can prove to me that anything else but my own consciousness exists. In the same way, there is no way I can prove to you that anything but your own consciousness exists.
How can I prove to you that I’m not a figment of your imagination? The fact is, I cannot. Even if I punched you to prove that I exist, that could just be your own mind manufacturing both me and the experience of being punched.
The stubborn fact is that you can’t even prove to yourself that anything besides your own thoughts and feelings exists.

 

[Linuxgal]

Can you prove that the material world is not just a concept inside of your conciousness? Everything and anything is only real to you and exists no where else but in your mind?

I have a mental model which is consistent with what I take to be, as an axiom, objective reality. I call this knowledge. If I discover a flaw in my mental model that contradicts reality, I try to correct my model so that I can continue to claim at least a partial knowledge of reality rather than drift into a detached belief in pure dogma. I have no interest in pursuing the epistemological topic of philosophical skepticism with a believer, which strikes me as ironic anyway.

 

[Linuxgal]

There is no way you can prove to me that anything else but my own consciousness exists. In the same way, there is no way I can prove to you that anything but your own consciousness exists.
How can I prove to you that I’m not a figment of your imagination? The fact is, I cannot. Even if I punched you to prove that I exist, that could just be your own mind manufacturing both me and the experience of being punched.
The stubborn fact is that you can’t even prove to yourself that anything besides your own thoughts and feelings exists.

Proof is for number theory. I'm not looking for proof, only a consistent narrative that elegantly explains the things we see, like mountain ranges and fossils. I don't see such consistency in Genesis. For one thing, God creates man and woman on day six in chapter one, but creates man first in chapter two, then some of the day five and six animals, then finally a day six woman.

 

[Linuxgal]

Therefore, 'science' cannot prove the nonexistence of God or spiritual phenomenon. All it can say is, "Not observed". Which I grant without question, by the way.

It is impossible to prove a negative. If I say we don't see God, a believer could say, 'Well, you haven't tried looking in the Arcturus star system". So what we do is hold our verdict until positive evidence comes in. Then again, if salvation is by grace obtained though faith, what happens when someone actually finds evidence of God? Faith becomes moot.

 

[JacksBratt]

Proof is for number theory. I'm not looking for proof, only a consistent narrative that elegantly explains the things we see, like mountain ranges and fossils. I don't see such consistency in Genesis. For one thing, God creates man and woman on day six in chapter one, but creates man first in chapter two, then some of the day five and six animals, then finally a day six woman.

What is your theory, then, on how all you perscieve, all buildings, oceans, space, people, are anything but a creation of you conciousness and not material at all?

I totally believe that the material world is real, even though I cannot prove it is anything more than a dream in my concious being. I also believe in a spirtitual rhealm that is as real as the material world. I base this on accounts I have heard personally from the person who experienced unexplainable events dealing with another dimension and from the numerous accounts documented in the various media.

 

[Linuxgal]

What is your theory, then, on how all you perscieve, all buildings, oceans, space, people, are anything but a creation of you conciousness and not material at all?

I know I am conscious (ala Rene Descartes) and it follows that there must be something out there to perceive, because that is what consciousness is, by definition. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

 

[sfs]

A material computer can follow a material process (stored on a disk) to fill an enclosed area with pixels of a certain color, but the computer remains a noun, and so does the process when it is dormant. The executing process, like a human mind, is a verb.

Neither processes nor minds are verbs.

 

[Linuxgal]

Neither processes nor minds are verbs.

I disagree. Life itself is a verb. DNA, the code of life, is a noun. Living is doing.

 

[sfs]

I disagree. Life itself is a verb. DNA, the code of life, is a noun. Living is doing.

Disagree all you want -- that don't make it so.

 

[sfs]

You're kind of late to the show, there's been a thing called the Popper Revolution. Science no longer confirms or proves anything, they build houses of falsifiable cards, and as long as they stand, the explanation is good. In other words, we have a theory that the material world exists, and it hasn't been shown to be false yet. However, a theory that the spiritual world exists is completely unfalsifiable. A failed supernatural healing, for example, would be explained as due only to a lack of faith.

There was no thing called the Popper Revolution. Popper had virtually no effect on the practice of science -- not surprising, since he was trying to describe science, not prescribe how it should be done. Within philosophy of science, his ideas are considered interesting but hardly without major problems.

 

[Linuxgal]

There was no thing called the Popper Revolution. Popper had virtually no effect on the practice of science -- not surprising, since he was trying to describe science, not prescribe how it should be done. Within philosophy of science, his ideas are considered interesting but hardly without major problems.

David Hume introduced the idea that any conjecture could not be established by induction because even the principle of induction was a conjecture that needed to be established. Karl Popper solved this problem with falsification, and it was indeed a revolution.

 

[sfs]

David Hume introduced the idea that any conjecture could not be established by induction because even the principle of induction was a conjecture that needed to be established. Karl Popper solved this problem with falsification, and it was indeed a revolution.

No, Karl Popper thought he had solved the problem of induction. He did not convince most philosophers of science, and he certainly didn't convince most scientists, who stubbornly keep thinking that better corroborated theories are more likely to be true than ones that haven't been tested.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, Karl Popper thought he had solved the problem of induction. He did not convince most philosophers of science, and he certainly didn't convince most scientists, who stubbornly keep thinking that better corroborated theories are more likely to be true than ones that haven't been tested.

The philosophy of science is a weird thing. I think you're underplaying Popper a bit - by their very nature philosophers argue, so arguing Popper's claims is nothing unusual. In fact, the amount of arguing that occurs about Popper is somewhat an indication of his importance. I think he had a bigger impact than you're giving him credit for, but at the same time it does seem to be some dirty little secret. I was never taught any philosophy of science while obtaining my engineering degrees. I found out about it later on my own because I began questioning certain premises that didn't seem to be adding up. When I then went back to engineering profs they gave me kind of a sheepish, "Yeah, we know about that stuff, but just try to ignore it," kind of answer - not at all satisfying.

Anyway, given the "correlation is not causation" mantra, why do you think better corroboration means a theory is more likely true? Is it "just because" or is there a theoretical basis for saying that? I don't recall ... have we talked about Sober before?

 

[sfs]

The philosophy of science is a weird thing. I think you're underplaying Popper a bit - by their very nature philosophers argue, so arguing Popper's claims is nothing unusual. I think he had a bigger impact than you're giving him credit for, but at the same time it does seem to be some dirty little secret. I was never taught any philosophy of science while obtaining my engineering degrees. I found out about it later on my own because I began questioning certain premises that didn't seem to be adding up. When I then went back to engineering profs they gave me kind of a sheepish, "Yeah, we know about that stuff, but just try to ignore it," kind of answer - not at all satisfying.

Anyway, given the "correlation is not causation" mantra, why do you think better corroboration means a theory is more likely true? Is it "just because" or is there a theoretical basis for saying that? I don't recall ... have we talked about Sober before?

Obviously, I don't think I'm underplaying Popper. My impression from reading about in philosophy of science is that most are utterly unconvinced by his approach.

Since I don't do philosophy of any kind, I'm not going to present a philosophical defense of scientists' conviction that corroborated theories are more likely to be true than uncorroborated ones. Do note, though, that "correlation does not imply causation" is rarely intended to imply that we can't ever determine causation; it means that just seeing a correlation isn't adequate to conclude causation. Finding a mechanism that explains how one causes the other is really helpful.

 

[Linuxgal]

Do note, though, that "correlation does not imply causation" is rarely intended to imply that we can't ever determine causation; it means that just seeing a correlation isn't adequate to conclude causation. Finding a mechanism that explains how one causes the other is really helpful.

I've been trained to conduct sessions in root cause analysis. People have a tendency to pin down "the" cause, but in actuality there are many causes for anything. An example is an incident following a party where beer bottles fall off a plate during clean-up and shatter on the floor. Was the cause the use of glass beer bottles, a paper plate to carry them, wooden rather than carpeted floors, inconsiderate guests who refused to clean up, or the fact that there was a party to begin with?

 

[Resha Caner]

I've been trained to conduct sessions in root cause analysis. People have a tendency to pin down "the" cause, but in actuality there are many causes for anything. An example is an incident following a party where beer bottles fall off a plate during clean-up and shatter on the floor. Was the cause the use of glass beer bottles, a paper plate to carry them, wooden rather than carpeted floors, inconsiderate guests who refused to clean up, or the fact that there was a party to begin with?

Yep.

Obviously, I don't think I'm underplaying Popper. My impression from reading about in philosophy of science is that most are utterly unconvinced by his approach.

I think that misrepresents the history of it. An army of people led by Peirce tried to "prove" the scientific method. After many years of failing Popper precipitated the, "Ah nuts, maybe we can't prove it," movement. That his alternative has its flaws in no way invalidates the change in attitudes he effected.

Since I don't do philosophy of any kind ...

That's a very bold (and honestly, very naive sounding) statement. It belies a philosophy of its own.

I'm not going to present a philosophical defense of scientists' conviction that corroborated theories are more likely to be true than uncorroborated ones. Do note, though, that "correlation does not imply causation" is rarely intended to imply that we can't ever determine causation; it means that just seeing a correlation isn't adequate to conclude causation. Finding a mechanism that explains how one causes the other is really helpful.

I didn't ask for a philosophical defense, but a theoretical basis. All your statements are leaning on intuition, not a codified justification. Since you didn't respond to Sober, I assume we have not discussed him before. FYI, he has spent most of his career trying to establish that correlation is causation for evolution, and he's not being very widely accepted as successful. If a smart guy like him can't do it, I'm skeptical it's going to happen any time soon.

As I've said too many times to count, my experiences in mechanics led me to a similar, "Ah nuts," conclusion about using correlation to establish causation. It works most of the time, and when it doesn't you go back and try again ... but that's hardly something one proudly trumpets as a "method". It's little better than guess and try.

In discussing such with my engineering colleagues, most agreed with the statement that research involves a lot of guessing. What distinguishes the professional engineer from the amateur is serendipity - an ability to know what guesses not to make and that when a good solution comes along, the trained engineer is better equipped to recognize it, capture/codify it, and send it back out to the world in a manner that can be replicated.

 

[JacksBratt]

I disagree. Life itself is a verb. DNA, the code of life, is a noun. Living is doing.

Life in both cases is a noun. Live is a verb. Nouns are a person, place or thing. Life is a thing.