NOMA: A Roadmap to peace

[UndercoverElephant]

NOMA: A Roadmap to Peace?

NB: "Village Idiot" prize goes any person who responds by pointing out that this is not a description of what is actually happening in the world right now. It is a roadmap to peace. It's a description of what science and religion would need to be for NOMA to work.

Metaphysical propositions are those which are justified with a combination of a subjectively-justified premise (e.g. "I am conscious") and a line of reasoning. NOMA is metaphysically and causally agnostic/neutral.

Ethical propositions are also justified with a combination of a subjectively-justified premise (e.g. "I believe whales are conscious") and a line of reasoning. Unlike metaphysical propositions, we have a socio-political need to reach consensus on ethics.

Scientific propositions are those which are solely or primarily justified with empirical evidence - by the analysis of observation and experimentation. Therefore we can say that science is the process of finding empirical evidence to support claims about the behaviour of the observed physical universe, about what we are likely to observe in the future or would be likely to observe if we could travel back into the past. It does not try to answer questions about the relationship between phenomenal and noumenal entities, because it has no need for this distinction and can't do anything with it. Well-supported, genuinely-scientific propositions ought to be accepted into all other language games. In other words, any proposition which directly contradicts science ought to be rejected.

Religious propositions are those which are solely or primarily justified subjectively - via faith, mystical experience and revelation. Religious propositions which contradict genuine scientific propositions should be rejected. Those which don't must be judged individually and personally. Different people will inevitably come to different conclusions. It is to be understood that "religion" is far more than this in terms of its cultural and social relevance. This definition is concerned with the fundamental differences between science and religion i.e. naturalism/non-naturalism and the differing levels of acceptability of subjectively-justified claims.

It is to be recognised that the difference of opinion between skeptics and mystics/paranormalists is unresolvable. This is because it boils down to a difference of subjective opinion about the meaning/cause of inherently subjective, ineffable experiences resulting from supposed paranormal disturbances in normal quantum indeterminacy . Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct.

It is to be recognised that all of us, when not playing by the rules of a strictly scientific language game, will depend upon a certain set of subjectively-justified propositions. We do not and cannot come to total agreement on which of these propositions are acceptable and which are not. Most people (but not all) will accept "I am conscious." Not so many will accept "I feel the presence of God." How people decide which subjectively-justified propositions to accept and which to reject is a complex process requiring critical thinking, intuition and reflection. To assist in this process is the purpose of most of philosophy, much of theology and a lot of art and literature. We must accept that we will not all come to the same conclusions about everything, but must do our best to try to improve the coherency of our own systems of belief and we must be tolerant of other systems of belief provided they do not contradict science or consensus ethics.

[gambling_cruiser]

And so you have demonstrated that NOMA will never work.
Consensus ethics for the whole world? Not in our live time.

[UndercoverElephant]

And so you have demonstrated that NOMA will never work.
Consensus ethics for the whole world? Not in our live time.

I didn't say the whole world could ever achieve a consensus ethics. I am saying that we have a need to achieve a socio-political consensus regarding ethics - this applies at all sorts of levels, but is of key importance at national level in order to decide on laws governing things like abortion and euthanasia. That arriving at this sort of consensus ethical position is hard is just a fact of life. From the POV of NOMA, all I am saying is that ethics has to be treated differently to either science or religion. It can't be purely empirical/objective, so it can't be science and it can't be purely subjective or based on religion because we have to agree as a society about ethical standards.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Subjectively justified premises and beliefs are still fodder for empirical investigation. That is a large part of psychology today. When groups of people believe the same thing, for whatever reason, we have a group we may study. We can ask any number of questions -- what is common about this group of people that they have reached the same conclusion about the world? What differs? How do they use language as compared to that group of people who believe something else?

You cannot eject science from any area of consensus belief or behavior on rational grounds because science simply needs repeated examples to test its hypotheses.

If everyone believes his or her own thing, then science cannot go there. But that is not religion.

[UndercoverElephant]

Subjectively justified premises and beliefs are still fodder for empirical investigation.


OK, let's investigate further.

Imagine we have 100 born-again Christians and a 100 atheists. All 100 born-agains claim they can feel the presence of God/Jesus in their lives. All 100 atheists say they feel no such presence. What can science do with this information?


What is a large part of psychology today. When groups of people believe the same thing, for whatever reason, we have a group we may study. We can ask any number of questions -- what is common about this group of people that they have reached the same conclusion about the world? What differs?


Well, the Christians are, erm, Christians and the atheists are not.



You cannot eject science from any area of consensus belief or behavior on rational grounds because science simply needs repeated examples to test its hypotheses.


So can science demonstrate that the born-agains in my example are wrong? Can it demonstrate they are right? Seems to me that it can't demonstrate very much at all. Any conclusions we might come to have far more to do with various assumptions we feed in (e.g. "materialism is true" or "God exists") than any genuine scientific investigation.



If everyone believes his or her own thing, then science cannot go there. But that is not religion.

It bears more resemblance to religion than it does to science.

[Soapy Sam]

" It is to be recognised that the difference of opinion between skeptics and mystics/paranormalists is unresolvable. This is because it boils down to a difference of subjective opinion about the meaning/cause of inherently subjective, ineffable experiences resulting from supposed paranormal disturbances in normal quantum indeterminacy . Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct."

Nonsense. The difference of opinion may be resolved by analysis of the supporting evidence.
Where none exists, reasonable doubt may be cast on any conclusion based on the absence thereof.

[UndercoverElephant]

" It is to be recognised that the difference of opinion between skeptics and mystics/paranormalists is unresolvable. This is because it boils down to a difference of subjective opinion about the meaning/cause of inherently subjective, ineffable experiences resulting from supposed paranormal disturbances in normal quantum indeterminacy . Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct."

Nonsense. The difference of opinion may be resolved by analysis of the supporting evidence.


Assume no undisputed supporting evidence is available, as in the example I just gave wasp.



Where none exists, reasonable doubt may be cast on any conclusion based on the absence thereof.

That's why it's unresolvable. The skeptics will undoubtedly remain skeptical (and have every right to do so), but they can't actually prove the mystics/paranormalists are wrong, and that is where the debate ends. There is nowhere else for it to go.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We must accept that we will not all come to the same conclusions about everything, but must do our best to try to improve the coherency of our own systems of belief and we must be tolerant of other systems of belief provided they do not contradict science or consensus ethics.
I can't argue with this.


Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct.
The skeptics can demand proof when the mystics try to foist their mysticism on others. As far as science proving which side is correct: I don't get it. There is nothing to prove correct in religion because it is almost exclusively based on faith.

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, let's investigate further.

Imagine we have 100 born-again Christians and a 100 atheists. All 100 born-agains claim they can feel the presence of God/Jesus in their lives. All 100 atheists say they feel no such presence. What can science do with this information?

Any number of things. First, we can start with what we can do now -- examine the upbringing of the one group vs the other; examine the psychological profiles of one group vs the other; examine which areas of the brain use more oxygen in the religious group when they say they are experiencing the presence of God vs the other.

Then, since this is all hypothetical and we may conjecture the future, we can try to isolate one type of neural network that works in conjunction with others that seems to correlate with the feeling of God's presence in the one vs the other. We can then build an artificial brain and simulate various conditions to see what produces the feeling of God vs what does not.



So can science demonstrate that the born-agains in my example are wrong? Can it demonstrate they are right? Seems to me that it can't demonstrate very much at all. Any conclusions we might come to have far more to do with various assumptions we feed in (e.g. "materialism is true" or "God exists") than any genuine scientific investigation.

I never said that science can demonstrate that the one group is right and the other wrong. Science is not in the business of investigating ultimate reality; it investigates the rules of the game that we see around us.

It can provide an alternate working model of how these experiences arise; it can provide the sort of suspicion that any number of religious experiences are wrong because they have an easy explanation in brain networking, just as Nietzsche provided suspicions of Christianity's failures and natural selection provided a mechanism for complex design from the bottom up.

With such an explanation we then apply Ockham's razor and needn't multiply explanatory mechanisms to include metaphysical realities beyond the here and now.


It bears more resemblance to religion than it does to science.

Yes, it does bear more resemblance to religion, but it is not religion. It is individual philosophy. And that's fine. People can believe what they want. But once they try to push others to believe the same thing we have every right to examine those beliefs in whatever detail so that we may decide.

Revelation occurs to single individuals. Everyone else has to decide on some grounds whether or not to believe what the other guy says.

[UndercoverElephant]

The skeptics can demand proof when the mystics try to foist their mysticism on others.


Yes, that's part of the proposed peace treaty.


As far as science proving which side is correct: I don't get it. There is nothing to prove correct in religion because it is almost exclusively based on faith.


Faith, revelation and mystical experience, none of which science has much chance of either "proving true" or "proving false."

[UndercoverElephant]

With such an explanation we then apply Ockham's razor and needn't multiply explanatory mechanisms to include metaphysical realities beyond the here and now.


Well, there's your problem. Occam's razor will necessarily be applied differently by the two different groups. The Christians, who actually claim to feel God's presence, aren't likely to accept atheists using Occam's razor to declare their direct subjective feelings aren't what they appear to be, and I think they have every right to react in this way. Isn't it a bit of a foregone conclusion that skeptics/atheists will end up coming to this conclusion?

I'm afraid that your description of a scientific process has resulted in a conclusion which had more to do with applying your own metaphysical beliefs about reality to the situation than it did with your application of scientific methods. I don't see how identifying bits of the brain which are in some way involved makes any difference to the root cause of the thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, there's your problem. Occam's razor will necessarily be applied differently by the two different groups. The Christians, who actually claim to feel God's presence, aren't likely to accept atheists using Occam's razor to declare their direct subjective feelings aren't what they appear to be, and I think they have every right to react in this way. Isn't it a bit of a foregone conclusion that skeptics/atheists will end up coming to this conclusion?

I'm afraid that your description of a scientific process has resulted in a conclusion which had more to do with applying your own metaphysical beliefs about reality to the situation than it did with your application of scientific methods. I don't see how identifying bits of the brain which are in some way involved makes any difference to the root cause of the thing.


You can always argue that, but the point of Ockham's razor is that we do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary for an explanation. If we can arrive at an explanation that maintains monism, that is a simpler explanation than one that posits dualism. That was the whole point of why natural selection was so revolutionary; we no longer needed a dualistic explanation for complexity.

If there is us and there is God, we've already entered dualism land. If you want to stick with monism and have a God, then we are all part of God, so us feeling the presence of God is just God feeling his own presence, which amounts to the same thing as neurons firings being the explanation.

Once again, science does not deal with ultimate reality. That is an issue for each and every person to decide on herself or himself.

[UndercoverElephant]

You can always argue that, but the point of Ockham's razor is that we do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary for an explanation. If we can arrive at an explanation that maintains monism, that is a simpler explanation than one that posits dualism.


Except for if you believe "consciousness exists" and also believe that the word "consciousness" doesn't belong in the concept "physical" then you might use Occam's razor to eliminate monism instead.

This doesn't work. It's certainly not science.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Except for if you believe "consciousness exists" and also believe that the word "consciousness" doesn't belong in the concept "physical" then you might use Occam's razor to eliminate monism instead.

This doesn't work. It's certainly not science.



How does that change things at all?

If consciousness doesn't belong to the concept of the physical, but you still believe that there are physical things, then you are in dualism land. You can believe that if you wish, but there is potentially a simpler explanation, which is monism. Ockham's razor doesn't concern what is, only what is more likely, what is simpler. Monism is simpler than dualism.

We could theoretically test the proposition that consciousness does or does not belong in the concept "physical". If, in the example given above, we can create an artificial brain that subjectively experiences the presence of God, then we have shown that consciousness is, most likely, physical. It will never prove it, of course, because, once again, science is not in the business of dealing with ultimate reality.

[Darat]

You can always argue that, but the point of Ockham's razor is that we do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary for an explanation. If we can arrive at an explanation that maintains monism, that is a simpler explanation than one that posits dualism. That was the whole point of why natural selection was so revolutionary; we no longer needed a dualistic explanation for complexity.

If there is us and there is God, we've already entered dualism land. If you want to stick with monism and have a God, then we are all part of God, so us feeling the presence of God is just God feeling his own presence, which amounts to the same thing as neurons firings being the explanation.

Once again, science does not deal with ultimate reality. That is an issue for each and every person to decide on herself or himself.

And of course as soon as the "religious person" makes the statement "I feel the presence of god" they are making a claim about reality (no matter what reality actually is or even if "is" can be applied to reality) so the whole "separate but equal" malarkey immediately collapses.

[Wowbagger]

NOMA can only be a roadmap for peace, if everyone agrees where the magisteria will never overlap. And, that ain't gonna happen.

It's better to allow both magisteria to completely overlap each other, resolving questions in a manner each side prefers. And, accepting that the "other side" has some value, as well.

That's a better approach to world peace, I think.

[stijndeloose]

Except for if you believe "consciousness exists" and also believe that the word "consciousness" doesn't belong in the concept "physical" then you might use Occam's razor to eliminate monism instead.

This doesn't work. It's certainly not science.

Only I'd like to see you give a scientifically workable definition of "consciousness". That would allow to form a decent hypotheses, one that would be testable and falsifiable.

Can you?

BTW: define 'non-physical'.

NOMA can only be a roadmap for peace, if everyone agrees where the magisteria will never overlap. And, that ain't gonna happen.

It's better to allow both magisteria to completely overlap each other, resolving questions in a manner each side prefers. And, accepting that the "other side" has some value, as well.

That's a better approach to world peace, I think.

That's a better approach to world delusion, methinks. It won't work. Not only will religion constantly thread on the scientific turf, hampering basic things such as medical progress; also, religionists won't ever agree among themselves, causing (a continuation of) the problems we already have today.

NOMA's worthless. Religion is fine, as long it doesn't try to impose itself on (or even deal with) reality.

S.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't want peace if it means intellectual dishonesty.

[Wowbagger]

That's a better approach to world delusion, methinks. It won't work. Not only will religion constantly thread on the scientific turf, hampering basic things such as medical progress; also, religionists won't ever agree among themselves, causing (a continuation of) the problems we already have today.
Perhaps I should clarify something:

I agree there is a risk of delusion. There always will be. But, we can minimize the risk to manageable size, if both science and religious work with each other's needs, instead of fighting against each other.

Religion would have to accept the findings of science, when it comes to developing reliable, empirical answers to questions. And, science would have to accept the faith of the religious as something of cherished value. We can do this, as long as no one is hurting anyone else.


Religion is fine, as long it doesn't try to impose itself on (or even deal with) reality.
The religious magisteria would, by definition, not be considered dealing with reality. Any answers it develops could still be of value, but not considered reliable.

There can never be a NOMA, because there can never be agreed-upon limits in finding answers. So, as long as each side is going to continue providing answers to everything, we might as well do it in a friendlier manner.

[stijndeloose]

Thanks for the clarification. I mostly agree. However:

Religion would have to accept the findings of science, when it comes to developing reliable, empirical answers to questions.


The problem is: how much of religion would be left if they did? :D

And, science would have to accept the faith of the religious as something of cherished value. We can do this, as long as no one is hurting anyone else.

Err... yes, and as long as no-one tries to enforce their unsupported blind assertions on anybody else. I wonder when/if that is going to happen...

S.

[Eyeron]

" It is to be recognised that the difference of opinion between skeptics and mystics/paranormalists is unresolvable. This is because it boils down to a difference of subjective opinion about the meaning/cause of inherently subjective, ineffable experiences resulting from supposed paranormal disturbances in normal quantum indeterminacy . Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct."

Nonsense. The difference of opinion may be resolved by analysis of the supporting evidence.
Where none exists, reasonable doubt may be cast on any conclusion based on the absence thereof.

You mean, like global warming?

[stijndeloose]

You mean, like global warming?

Well, yes, in a way. The ultimate test for the hypotheses that human activity cause (or contributes to) global warming would be to annihilate (or at least minimize) CO2 emissions, and see if the global temperatures go down.

Unfortunately, this is kind of difficult to achieve, and clearly not everyone is willing to do it.

But that does not mean that the scientific method doesn't work in this case. It does.

[UndercoverElephant]

How does that change things at all?

If consciousness doesn't belong to the concept of the physical, but you still believe that there are physical things, then you are in dualism land.


Well, you're not in materialism land. All that matters in the context of this particular debate is that we are talking about metaphysics, not science.


You can believe that if you wish, but there is potentially a simpler explanation, which is monism. Ockham's razor doesn't concern what is, only what is more likely, what is simpler. Monism is simpler than dualism.


Yes, but as already explained, whether or not monism is enough to account for reality is another question. That nothing exists at all is simpler than something complex existing. Does that mean we can use Occam's razor to conclude that nothing exists? This is not science. It's really bad philosophy.


We could theoretically test the proposition that consciousness does or does not belong in the concept "physical". If, in the example given above, we can create an artificial brain that subjectively experiences the presence of God, then we have shown that consciousness is, most likely, physical. It will never prove it, of course, because, once again, science is not in the business of dealing with ultimate reality.

Even that isn't going to get you the scientific justification you are seeking.

[UndercoverElephant]

And of course as soon as the "religious person" makes the statement "I feel the presence of god" they are making a claim about reality (no matter what reality actually is or even if "is" can be applied to reality) so the whole "separate but equal" malarkey immediately collapses.

Darat,

Maybe you might actually learn something from one of my threads?

Think about it a bit harder. I have stated that science and religion are to be distinguished on the grounds that they justify their claims in different ways.

Now...does your refutation still work? Or is it a straw man?

[UndercoverElephant]

NOMA can only be a roadmap for peace, if everyone agrees where the magisteria will never overlap. And, that ain't gonna happen.

It's better to allow both magisteria to completely overlap each other, resolving questions in a manner each side prefers. And, accepting that the "other side" has some value, as well.

That's a better approach to world peace, I think.

It is an appalling idea. It is a recipe for total chaos. You are basically saying "who needs philosophy?! Let science and religion fight to the death!" If it were to actually happen, both science and religion would suffer serious consequences.

[UndercoverElephant]

Only I'd like to see you give a scientifically workable definition of "consciousness". That would allow to form a decent hypotheses, one that would be testable and falsifiable.

Can you?


My position is that no scientifically workable definition of consciousness is possible.


BTW: define 'non-physical'.


Oh, that is easy. It is whatever isn't physical. :D

Only a complete fool would try to define "non-physical" without being offered a definition of "physical" first. For all I know I am dealing with some one who has defined "physical" to mean "everything." I know of at least two people on this board who have tried that stunt in the past.

[UndercoverElephant]

The religious magisteria would, by definition, not be considered dealing with reality. Any answers it develops could still be of value, but not considered reliable.


No, that is not the case. I have not defined "reality" at this time and I have explictly stated that NOMA is metaphysically and causally agnostic/neutral. That means we do NOT start with any presumptions about the nature of reality, causality or truth.


There can never be a NOMA, because there can never be agreed-upon limits in finding answers. So, as long as each side is going to continue providing answers to everything, we might as well do it in a friendlier manner.

Both sides have no right to claim they can provide answers to everything. Neither science nor religion has a right to dictate consensus ethics. PERIOD.

[The Atheist]

...If, in the example given above, we can create an artificial brain that subjectively experiences the presence of God, then we have shown that consciousness is, most likely, physical...

RatZZinger probably hasn't caught up with it yet, but there are definitely christians out there who have already got in front of that.

There's a certain stage of "consciousness" at which the sky-daddy can insert a soul. some animals may have it, and AI certainly could.

You'll never get them that easily.

Only I'd like to see you give a scientifically workable definition of "consciousness". That would allow to form a decent hypotheses, one that would be testable and falsifiable.

Can you?

BTW: define 'non-physical'.

Sigh.

If only people would or could answer those questions honestly.

Pity.

NOMA's worthless. Religion is fine, as long it doesn't try to impose itself on (or even deal with) reality.

S.

:bigclap

And gets the three-peat!

Nice.

[tsig]

My position is that no scientifically workable definition of consciousness is possible.



Oh, that is easy. It is whatever isn't physical. :D

Only a complete fool would try to define "non-physical" without being offered a definition of "physical" first. For all I know I am dealing with some one who has defined "physical" to mean "everything." I know of at least two people on this board who have tried that stunt in the past.

OK what's "physical" then?

[Wowbagger]

The problem is: how much of religion would be left if they did? :D Lots! Seriously. Don't underestimate religion's ability to be innovative in the realm of attracting flocks.

Religion's best chance at long term survival would be to cease fighting against science for claims of "reality", and instead develop a warm and fuzzy faith in the face of reality.

Religion played a vital part in human evolution for thousands (if not millions) of years. Its importance might have diminished over the centuries, especially for those of us on this forum. But, it is still has a firm grip on the core of our physiology. Don't be naive to assume it will not find a way to mutate and survive, in some other forms.


Err... yes, and as long as no-one tries to enforce their unsupported blind assertions on anybody else. I wonder when/if that is going to happen...
I know this was meant to be rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway:

There will always probably be a few nutters running around trying to enforce unsupported, blind assertions. But, we can minimize that through the continued democratizing of information. Even when there is no intended application of science involved: Better, more reliable ideas will become more prevalent, over time, through a democracy; than by placing heavier reliance on individuals.

I would also argue that there always should be a small number of such nutters around. Keeping 1% to 2% of the population moderately sociopathic keeps the rest of us on our toes, so that larger waves of sociopaths have more difficulty gaining more power.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK what's "physical" then?

I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused on the main topic of the thread.

Why does it matter how "physical" is defined at this point in the discussion?

The definitions I gave of science, religion, metaphysics and ethics are independent of the concepts "physical" and "physicalism". This is deliberate. I need this definition of NOMA to come before any assumptions about metaphysics or the nature of reality or causality. What I do NOT want is for people to start imposing their own ideas about what "physical" or "physicalism" mean before they have agreed what the difference is between science, religion and metaphysics - and that includes my own ideas about what they mean.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I guess I don't understand what your roadmap is. It appears to be "Why can't we all just get along?"

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

I guess I don't understand what your roadmap is. It appears to be "Why can't we all just get along?"

~~ Paul

It is rather more than that, Paul. At the moment there are people on both sides who don't think is possible for us all to get along. This is an attempt to explain why they are wrong.

[Wowbagger]

It is an appalling idea. It is a recipe for total chaos. You are basically saying "who needs philosophy?! Let science and religion fight to the death!" If it were to actually happen, both science and religion would suffer serious consequences. I am NOT talking about a fight to the death. I am talking about the EXACT OPPOSITE! Both religion and science developing their ideas, while tolerating and accepting any value in the other when appropriate.



That means we do NOT start with any presumptions about the nature of reality, causality or truth.Okay. We do not start with such presumptions, but you would be naïve to assume that would last very long.


Both sides have no right to claim they can provide answers to everything. Okay, but: Making "claims" is one thing. "Doing" is another.

What happens when people do start providing answers to everything?

Would you agree that anyone can at least try to develop answers to everything, as unlikely as you think success might be, as long as they are honest about the results? (Being open about both where they succeeded and failed in developing answers.)

Neither science nor religion has a right to dictate consensus ethics. PERIOD.And, who are YOU to declare such things?

What happens if a consensus of ethics develops (as unlikely as that might be) in spite of what you think is right or not?

Almost everyone already agrees on the proximate source of ethics: They are developed by the culture around you, based on its needs and interests. Those needs and interests will never be the same for everyone, so some differences will always exist.

But, I predict that the more similar our needs become, the more similar our ethics will be. It will not happen by fiat. It could happen by democracy. Though, not perfectly, of course.

Obviously, there are big disagreements about the ultimate causes of ethics: Traditional religious folks will say they come from a god. Many scientific sorts will say they follow from how "selfish" genes can figure out that working together is in their own best interest. But, that's beside the point.

You want world peace? I still fail to see what NOMA can contribute to that.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is rather more than that, Paul. At the moment there are people on both sides who don't think is possible for us all to get along. This is an attempt to explain why they are wrong.
We can all get along (probably won't, but can). We can't all be right, though.

[UndercoverElephant]

Wowbagger

I am not prepared to seriously entertain the notion that science can do ethics. Anyone who believes such a thing is not a person who is ever likely to take NOMA seriously. If I thought a significant number of people believe science can do ethics then I'd bother trying to refute it, but I don't believe a significant number of people believe that science can do ethics.

Geoff

[Wowbagger]

By the way, as I re-read the opening post, I get the sense that it is not really describing NOMA, anyway. Though, maybe I'm missing something. What does everyone else think?

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way, as I re-read the opening post, I get the sense that it is not really describing NOMA, anyway.

In that case, what is it describing?

[The Atheist]

It is rather more than that, Paul. At the moment there are people on both sides who don't think is possible for us all to get along. This is an attempt to explain why they are wrong.

No.

It's an attempt to make one side give way.

In a complete surprise, the one you wish to give way is the one you disagree with.

Wowbagger

I am not prepared to seriously entertain the notion that science can do ethics. Anyone who believes such a thing is not a person who is ever likely to take NOMA seriously. If I thought a significant number of people believe science can do ethics then I'd bother trying to refute it, but I don't believe a significant number of people believe that science can do ethics.

Geoff

QED

You've stated your point, you failed to make a coherent case for what is, as Paul quite correctly pointed out, a plea for everyone to get along.

Which can only be achieved by your vision.

Oh, and regarding the last sentence, what significant numbers of people believe is irrelevant.

[Wowbagger]

I am not prepared to seriously entertain the notion that science can do ethics.With all due respect, this qualifies as an Argument from Personal Incredulity. Just becauses you are not clever enough to think of ways science can do ethics, does not automatically mean no one ever will be.

I covered some examples of how science can address ethical issues, in some previous posts. (One of these days I should wrangle them together into one source.) Here is one example of one of my posts:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5374463#post5374463

And, here are a couple of examples from that one:

"At which point does a foetus become a person worthy of protection?" Science shows us that there is not a single "point" to worry about, but rather a gradual process of development, that deserves a gradual issuance of protection. Where the "lines" of such protections are drawn can change over time, depending on human interest and need, and of course: further scientific research.

"Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?" Game theory can give us insight into the risks vs. rewards of stealing something, for both the individual and the society at large. We can mold and shape our moral codes and laws based on what works out most efficiently, mathematically. Much of biological evolution is based on this kind of stuff.

Social sciences could also give us some insight, perhaps in a more general, less mathematically specific way.

These might not be complete answers, but they demonstrate how science can address these sorts of issues, with more precision over time.

Now, I present you with a challenge: Can you think of any ethical dilemmas that science can never address in any way?

[Darat]

In that case, what is it describing?


An attempt to ring fence certain beliefs and claims so that they can't be challenged. In other words your latest attempt to claim that your experiences are beyond question by other people.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is rather more than that, Paul. At the moment there are people on both sides who don't think is possible for us all to get along. This is an attempt to explain why they are wrong.
But you haven't. Instead, you've admonished everyone to get along:


Skeptics and mystics must therefore simply agree to disagree. The skeptics cannot demand proof. The mystics cannot expect the skeptics to accept the claims they make. Science can never prove which side is correct.
There is no explanation there.

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

No.

It's an attempt to make one side give way.

In a complete surprise, the one you wish to give way is the one you disagree with.


Err...which one is that then?

Well-supported, genuinely-scientific propositions ought to be accepted into all other language games. In other words, any proposition which directly contradicts science ought to be rejected.


In what way is this "science giving way"? The reverse is true. This specification of NOMA demands no sacrifices from science. The only sacrifice it demands from that side of the conflict is one which accepts that science can't prove that determinism is true (i.e. it can't rule out things like free will.) Religion, on the other hand, is forced to make a lot of concessions.

[Wowbagger]

In that case, what is it describing?I don't know, yet. Some sort of triple-layered ideal: Science on one side, religion on the other, and a nebulous field of metaphysics between them, where they... for lack of a better term... overlap.

That's the gist I am getting. Am I wrong on that?

[UndercoverElephant]

With all due respect, this qualifies as an Argument from Personal Incredulity.


You're right it is. In this case it is just a means of avoiding getting involved in a discussion I see as pointless.

Gould basically assigned ethics to religion. I am trying to be more neutral by assigning it to society in general. OK, so some people might actually think we have to go further and assign it science. I personally do not believe that enough people with any serious intellectual weight will want to pursue this path, so I'm simply going to ignore it.

[UndercoverElephant]

An attempt to ring fence certain beliefs and claims so that they can't be challenged. In other words your latest attempt to claim that your experiences are beyond question by other people.

:D

Thanks for you contribution to the thread, Darat...

[UndercoverElephant]

But you haven't. Instead, you've admonished everyone to get along:


There is no explanation there.

~~ Paul

That is defended is elsewhere. Put simply, science itself (and therefore "physicalism" as commonly understood) has led us to the point where indeterminacy is part of our physical theory. This alone is enough to make the skeptics vs mystics/paranormalists debate unresolvable, because it provides a possible mechanism for mystical or paranormal phenomena which could potentially escape scientific testing. In the end it comes down to the mystic saying "I directly experienced it" and the skeptic saying "That's not good enough evidence to justify my acceptance of your claim". The debate has nowhere to go after that. They can continue arguing all they like...they won't get anywhere.

[Wowbagger]

Gould basically assigned ethics to religion. I am trying to be more neutral by assigning it to society in general. OK, so some people might actually think we have to go further and assign it science. So, basically, what this means is that you are starting to see the cracks in NOMA.

Why "assign" ethics to anything?

I personally do not believe that enough people with any serious intellectual weight will want to pursue this path, so I'm simply going to ignore it.Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, to name just a couple of serious intellectual types, are not ignoring it.

[UndercoverElephant]

So, basically, what this means is that you are starting to see the cracks in NOMA.

Why "assign" ethics to anything?


Because we have a social and political need to enact laws to cover everything from euthanasia to the teaching of creationism in science classes. These are ultimately ethical decisions. The case of skeptics against the creationist boils down to a claim about ethics: that it is unethical to mislead a person into believing that a specific claim has scientific support when no such support exists.


Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, to name just a couple of serious intellectual types, are not ignoring it.

Given that Dawkins is the #1 target of the whole position I am trying to defend, this isn't a great problem. In other words, I intend to "cut Dawkins off at the pass", long before he gets anywhere near claiming science can do ethics.

[Wowbagger]

Given that Dawkins is the #1 target of the whole position I am trying to defend, this isn't a great problem. In other words, I intend to "cut Dawkins off at the pass", long before he gets anywhere near claiming science can do ethics.It's already too late.

Science is no longer merely claiming to do ethics. It has already started doing ethics. Richard Dawkins was one such scientist, doing ethics as far back as the 1970's, when he published The Selfish Gene, which was very influential in the field of biology and ethology, etc.

So, looks like it's already out of your hands. Sorry about that.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know, yet. Some sort of triple-layered ideal: Science on one side, religion on the other, and a nebulous field of metaphysics between them, where they... for lack of a better term... overlap.

That's the gist I am getting. Am I wrong on that?

It's more than a "triple-layered ideal". It is a pluralistic approach to knowledge and truth. It actually involves science having quite clear boundaries (this is because science is by its very nature much easier to define than the other things - it is self-limiting because of its own methods, standards and ideals), but the other areas having fuzzy boundaries. This does not matter all that much. Nobody is having a big dispute about where, exactly, the borders lie between art, metaphysics and religion. Ethics also needs a sharp boundary, but for a completely different reason, namely that we have a pressing socio-political need to come to a consensus on ethical questions - more so than we have about science, metaphysics or religion.

[Wowbagger]

It's more than a "triple-layered ideal". It is a pluralistic approach to knowledge and truth. It actually involves science having quite clear boundaries (this is because science is by its very nature much easier to define than the other things - it is self-limiting because of its own methods, standards and ideals), but the other areas having fuzzy boundaries. This does not matter all that much. Nobody is having a big dispute about where, exactly, the borders lie between art, metaphysics and religion. Ethics also needs a sharp boundary, but for a completely different reason, namely that we have a pressing socio-political need to come to a consensus on ethical questions - more so than we have about science, metaphysics or religion.Sounds like a Douglas Adams joke: "What we demand are rigidly defined areas of uncertainty and doubt."

I promise to have a better response when I have more time, later on.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only sacrifice it demands from that side of the conflict is one which accepts that science can't prove that determinism is true (i.e. it can't rule out things like free will.)
It doesn't matter, because it only takes logic to prove that libertarian free will is ruled out.


That is defended is elsewhere. Put simply, science itself (and therefore "physicalism" as commonly understood) has led us to the point where indeterminacy is part of our physical theory. This alone is enough to make the skeptics vs mystics/paranormalists debate unresolvable, because it provides a possible mechanism for mystical or paranormal phenomena which could potentially escape scientific testing.
How so?

Are you asking one side to give up logic in an effort to get along with the other?

~~ Paul

[TSR]

I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused on the main topic of the thread.

.
The New Orleans Museum of Art?
.

[JoeTheJuggler]

NOMA: A Roadmap to Peace?

NB: "Village Idiot" prize goes any person who responds by pointing out that this is not a description of what is actually happening in the world right now. It is a roadmap to peace. It's a description of what science and religion would need to be for NOMA to work.

I'm sure I'll claim the V.I. prize. IMO you can't ignore that Religion has ever limited itself to making claims about the realm you describe here:



Religious propositions are those which are solely or primarily justified subjectively - via faith, mystical experience and revelation. Religious propositions which contradict genuine scientific propositions should be rejected. Those which don't must be judged individually and personally.

So, even if it's possible for religion to limit itself that way (see below), they don't know, and this "road map" approach will certainly including somehow accepting the status quo as OK as long as it's moving toward that goal.

At any rate, there is also the god of the gaps problem. Just because science can't currently contradict something, doesn't mean it never will.

And there's the very real chance (reality) that what's left for religion is an empty set. I don't see how using NOMA as a road map helps us get at the truth. It would be asserting a magisterium that has never been seen as a limit for religion and that is very likely to be empty of all propositions.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, you're not in materialism land. All that matters in the context of this particular debate is that we are talking about metaphysics, not science.


Who said I was? The only issue where metaphysics comes into play with science entering into the debate with religion is over the question of what is most likely. If science can explain experiences, and specifically if it can explain the experience of feeling one with God, then the simplest explanation is going to be that brains do it and the God part is not necessary in the explanation. Once again, it doesn't prove the non-existence of God -- it doesn't answer final metaphysical questions.


Yes, but as already explained, whether or not monism is enough to account for reality is another question. That nothing exists at all is simpler than something complex existing. Does that mean we can use Occam's razor to conclude that nothing exists? This is not science. It's really bad philosophy.


Who said it was science? Science is there to examine what it can. I explained to you how it can examine a particular religious claim -- so that claim is not in a separable category, it is not in its own kingdom. We then simply use the idea of parsimony to expand on the meaning of the experience -- that what people think it means does not match the simplest, most likely explanation.

That nothing exists is not simpler than one thing existing, because nothing existing is an oxymoron.

How many times must I repeat that Ockham's razor does not tell us what exists and what doesn't? It is a tool for examining arguments and jettisoning needless expansion of existents in any explanation. It does not make final metaphysical claims. It never has; I have never argued that it has.


Even that isn't going to get you the scientific justification you are seeking.


I really don't understand what you think I am saying. I am not trying to find some kind of final scientific justification for anything. You raised the NOMA issue. I countered with the fact that as soon as a group of people hold a set of ideas in common that we can begin to examine their beliefs scientifically. I gave you several examples of how to go about it. And I further stated that once we have a scientific explanation of a certain experience (feeling that God is near, etc.), then we can apply Ockham's razor to arrive at the most parsimonious answer -- brains are responsible for that experience. We needn't postulate God necessarily.

Of course anyone can decide they want to believe in God if they so desire. I am not making a point about metaphysics; I'm not telling you what is. I simply mentioned that the most parsimonious answer is that all of reality is composed of one substance because that simply is the most parsimonious answer if we can describe things in 'physical' terms.

The bottom line is that NOMA doesn't work as you have laid it out. The magisteria do overlap; you cannot keep science out the way you have it defined.

I have no idea why you think I am making a metaphysical claim.

[westprog]

It's already too late.

Science is no longer merely claiming to do ethics. It has already started doing ethics. Richard Dawkins was one such scientist, doing ethics as far back as the 1970's, when he published The Selfish Gene, which was very influential in the field of biology and ethology, etc.

So, looks like it's already out of your hands. Sorry about that.

Science does not do ethics, never has and almost certainly never will. There is no "ought" in science. There's a common misapprehension that studies of how ethical systems arise, and biological investigations as to what makes altruistic and selfish behaviour happen are the same thing as studying ethics. They are not - and scientists usually know as much.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Science does not do ethics, never has and almost certainly never will. There is no "ought" in science. There's a common misapprehension that studies of how ethical systems arise, and biological investigations as to what makes altruistic and selfish behaviour happen are the same thing as studying ethics. They are not - and scientists usually know as much.


Correct, but if you operationally define what duty is, or what the greatest good for the greatest number or the golden mean for a particular characteristic, then we could theoretically investigate what decisions in which situations produce the best results. Science could then provide an 'ought'.

I don't think we should ever do that, but there is no strict boundary that separates the two.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Science does not do ethics, never has and almost certainly never will. There is no "ought" in science. There's a common misapprehension that studies of how ethical systems arise, and biological investigations as to what makes altruistic and selfish behaviour happen are the same thing as studying ethics. They are not - and scientists usually know as much.
No one is saying the scientific study of ethics is the same thing as traditional ethics. The question is, are you willing to say that the scientific study of ethics has nothing to do with ethics?

As Ichneumonwasp just noted, the magisteria overlap. That's the way it goes.

Here my question: Why does anyone care? So they overlap and so there will always be argument. What's the problem?

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here my question: Why does anyone care? So they overlap and so there will always be argument. What's the problem?

~~ Paul


Exactly. Why does anyone care? I'm sorry, but this really does strike me as one side trying to hide from the other.

Science doesn't attack religion. People engaged in science sometimes do, but that is different. What exactly is the problem with religious ideas being poked and prodded a bit? Are people worried that the ideas might be shown to be a sham?

[Robin]

So here is my question.

When anybody in the forum says something like 'the brain produces consciousness', you, very reasonably ask, 'where is your evidence?'

Quite right too - without evidence it is merely a mystical claim.

So under the terms of your own NOMA are you going to stop asking questions like these?

If so it would be a pity because these sorts of questions have value.

[Wowbagger]

It's more than a "triple-layered ideal". It is a pluralistic approach to knowledge and truth. It actually involves science having quite clear boundaries A framework of thought with any rigid boundaries of what any magisterium can think about doesn't seem very pluralistic, to me.

What you are proposing might actually be a small improvement over NOMA, in fact.

But, I fail to see why science should have sharp boundaries in what it can or cannot do. Its methods might be relatively sharply defined*. But, no one can tell science what the limits of its powers should be.

(*Although, the scientific method, itself, is subject to the scientific method, so even it could be modified over time.)

Nobody is having a big dispute about where, exactly, the borders lie between art, metaphysics and religion.That much might be true.

But, it sounds like you are leaving some boundaries fuzzy because "no one cares", and other boundaries solid because you care about them, and you want everyone else to care the same way you do. So, who are you to decide these things?

Ethics also needs a sharp boundary, but for a completely different reason, namely that we have a pressing socio-political need to come to a consensus on ethical questions
First of all, you are unlikely to gain world peace by trying to develop a consensus on ethical questions, directly. (Though, if you want one, science is probably the best place for good information relevant to such a goal.)

It is more pluralistic, in fact, to allow mutual tolerance and respect for a diversity of ethical standards. Though, some small amount of common ground is necessary, of course: We do not want murder, rape, theft, etc. to become rampant; and we do not want to endorse "relativism" that the religious seem to fear.

But, guess what: Almost all humans are going to agree on the big stuff, anyway. Few humans think murder and rape is a good idea, because it goes against the grain of our evolutionary heritage. So, most of that diversity I was talking about is going to be on the small stuff.

Why do you think there is a "pressing need" for a consensus on ethical questions?

We can probably achieve world peace, more effectively by not sweating the small stuff, so much.

The expanding circle of altruism** will probably do more to achieve world peace than anything you are proposing. The more we seek to help each other, the less we seek to fight each other, and the more recognize how others can help us, too.

(**which follows from the science of evolutionary biology, by the way)

Science does not do ethics, never has and almost certainly never will. There is no "ought" in science. There's a common misapprehension that studies of how ethical systems arise, and biological investigations as to what makes altruistic and selfish behaviour happen are the same thing as studying ethics. They are not - and scientists usually know as much. Okay, slight modification: Science can address ethical issues, which can then be used to inform us about what the most effective ethical standards might be, based on our needs and interests.

The more science learns about how and why we behave the way we do, and which survival strategies best fit our needs, the more it will appear as though science is "doing ethics", even if it is not strictly true; and that there are a few "middlemen" between the scientists and policy makers.


Correct, but if you operationally define what duty is, or what the greatest good for the greatest number or the golden mean for a particular characteristic, then we could theoretically investigate what decisions in which situations produce the best results. Science could then provide an 'ought'. Yep, this is another way of saying what I was saying.

I don't think we should ever do that, but there is no strict boundary that separates the two.What if future generations disagree? What if "the science of ethics" is so successful, it would make your comments seem quaint and old fashioned?


Sounds like a Douglas Adams joke: "What we demand are rigidly defined areas of uncertainty and doubt."

Here is the exact quote, from chapter 25 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

[Maia]

It's already too late.

Science is no longer merely claiming to do ethics. It has already started doing ethics. Richard Dawkins was one such scientist, doing ethics as far back as the 1970's, when he published The Selfish Gene, which was very influential in the field of biology and ethology, etc.

So, looks like it's already out of your hands. Sorry about that.

"Science" does not have a monolithic voice here. I don't want to really blame Dawkins too much, even though gene selection theory and meme selection have serious, serious problems, because I don't see that he's ever travelled down the sociobiology path in the way that someone like E.O. Wilson has. But the biological determinist school of thought is not the only scientific school, and the roster of scientists who passionately and articulately disagree with it, from Gould to Lewontin to Rose to Kamin to Vrba to Nelkin to Bateson to... well, it goes on and on... frankly, I think, is more impressive than the other side (not to mention the greater validity of the arguments!)

What is in fashion-- whether it's called sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, biological determinism, or Social Darwinism (not that anyone will ever acknowledge THAT spectre at the feast again)-- is not always right. And as much as I wouldn't blame Dawkins on a personal level, as much as he's nowhere near as bad as some others who are more pseudo-scientists than anything else, gene selection theory and especially the nonsense of "meme theory" both keep something going that is not only deterministic but has the seductive allure of intelligent design. But our genes didn't "design" us, either; they are units of selection and not units of interaction. They can't "do" anything. (It is very telling that nobody, especially Dawkins, seems to be able to write about genes as supposed "selectors" without anthropomorphizing them.)

Evolution is random. We don't have to somehow "break free" of its effects, or really go downhill and believe fact-free, totally untestable, made-up crap such as as "gender and race differences are determined by our evolved natures" (per Cronin, Thornhill, Palmer, Rushton, Murray, Hernnstein, et al, ad nauseum... remember when I was talking about pseudo-scientists?) This is where "science" needs to stay out of the area of ethics-- when it pretends to be science but no longer is. Helena Cronin wanted a two-tiered system of employment, one for men and one for women. Thornhill and Palmer thought their studies meant that rape counselling suggesting that young women who wear certain clothing were responsible for provoking rape was a great idea. David Buss sent out a SURVEY asking people about their attitudes towards sex, noted some cross-cultural similarities, and on that basis concluded that modern gender roles are the result of evolution.

So who will govern the politics of ethical scientific decisions, and in what area of our lives? Who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Who will be the judge?

[UndercoverElephant]

It doesn't matter, because it only takes logic to prove that libertarian free will is ruled out.


How so?

Are you asking one side to give up logic in an effort to get along with the other?

~~ Paul

Paul,

No logic can demonstrate that humans/"powers unspecified" can or cannot influence quantum indeterminacy.

Geiff

[UndercoverElephant]

So, even if it's possible for religion to limit itself that way (see below), they don't know, and this "road map" approach will certainly including somehow accepting the status quo as OK as long as it's moving toward that goal.


I think the status quo is already moving that way. We can't expect the world to change overnight.


At any rate, there is also the god of the gaps problem. Just because science can't currently contradict something, doesn't mean it never will.


That's why I have used science to define the gap. The "gap" is quantum indeterminacy, as described by quantum mechanics.


And there's the very real chance (reality) that what's left for religion is an empty set. I don't see how using NOMA as a road map helps us get at the truth.

That is not its primary purpose. It may help to rid us of illogical beliefs, but whether that counts as "closer to truth" is another matter.

The purpose of this NOMA is to provoke people to argue about what it is actually worth arguing about. It is about improving the quality of the debates about science and religion.

[Robin]

Paul,

No logic can demonstrate that humans/"powers unspecified" can or cannot influence quantum indeterminacy.

Geiff
But if they do, they will influence it either deterministically or randomly - so the point is not relevant to whether or not we have libertarian free will.

[UndercoverElephant]

Who said I was? The only issue where metaphysics comes into play with science entering into the debate with religion is over the question of what is most likely. If science can explain experiences, and specifically if it can explain the experience of feeling one with God, then the simplest explanation is going to be that brains do it and the God part is not necessary in the explanation. Once again, it doesn't prove the non-existence of God -- it doesn't answer final metaphysical questions.


Here are some examples of explanations.

(1) Humans are intelligent because they have large, complex brains.

This is a causal explanation. It is the complex structure of our nervous system which causes humans to have high levels of intelligence.

(2) Humans are intelligent because the more intelligent of our ancestors had a greater chance of surviving to produce offspring.

This is a Darwinian (and causal) explanation, a sort of explanation which scientists attempt to apply to almost all properties of living systems.

(3) Human religious behaviour is the the result of the need for tribal cohesion.

This is a functional (and Darwinian) explanation, in this case a socio-biological explanation. It claims that the reason why human religious behaviour exists everywhere that humans exist is because our natural state is tribal, and that tribes must be bound together with a set of shared beliefs about the nature of reality.

(4) Humans are intelligent because God designed them that way.

This is a theological explanation.

(5) Humans believe in paranormal phenomena because they are easily deluded into believing whatever they want to believe, via processes like confirmation bias.

This is a psychological explanation, which attempts to explain human behaviour in terms of human psychology.

(6) Human behaviour is dictated by the laws of physics.

This is a nomic explanation, which explains human behaviour in terms of natural laws.

(1) and (2) are the most obviously scientific of these examples. They are explanations of unambiguously physical things (or behaviours) in terms of other unambiguously physical things. (4) is non-scientific. The word "God" doesn't have any physical or scientific meaning, unless you see God as a bearded man sitting on a cloud, interacting with the reality much like any other physical object. (6) sounds scientific, but, given the problems we have in defining what a natural law is, there may be difficulties lurking here. If we were to modify it slightly to "Human behaviour is entirely dictated by the laws of physics" then we are implictly making a metaphysical claim i.e. that libertarian free will does not exist, and maybe also that physicalism and/or determinism is true, depending on precisely what is meant. This is not so much an "explanation" as an assertion, and one which may not be scientifically justified.

(3) and (5) are both controversial, and for the same reason. They are both attempts to provide a scientific explanation for complex human behaviour and beliefs, and those explanations, whilst made in the spirit of science and whilst bringing whatever scientific knowledge is available to bear, tend to be disputed by people who do not accept that the ideological and metaphysical framework which is suitable for science is also applicable to human psychology.


Who said it was science?


If it's not science then I have no problem with it.


How many times must I repeat that Ockham's razor does not tell us what exists and what doesn't? It is a tool for examining arguments and jettisoning needless expansion of existents in any explanation. It does not make final metaphysical claims. It never has; I have never argued that it has.


But you did argue that materialism was simpler than dualism. This is true, but Occam's razor is no good if materialism, although simpler, does not fit with the available facts. And what facts are available is...disputed.



I really don't understand what you thnk I am saying. I am not trying to find some kind of final scientific justification for anything. You raised the NOMA issue. I countered with the fact that as soon as a group of people hold a set of ideas in common that we can begin to examine their beliefs scientifically.


Here's the problem with that:

Jones eats a pound of arsenic and dies within 24 hours. No problems here for the covering law approach to scientific explanation, you might think. We can have a law which states that all people who eat a pound of arsenic will die within 24 hours, Jones ate a pound of arsenic and now he's dead. We have our explanation!

The problem is that Jones did not die of arsenic poisoning, but was run over by a bus.

The general form of this problem is that even if the premises of the proposed explanations are true, they may still be the wrong explanation for the explanandum. In other words, since you have assumed that science can answer what is essentially a metaphysical problem, your scientific explanation, whilst being the "inference to the best explanation" in terms of science, isn't even necessarily the best scientific explanation, let alone the correct one.

[Wowbagger]

even though gene selection theory and meme selection have serious, serious problems, Such as? Perhaps this is a topic for a different thread. But, I would love to know what problems you have with gene selection theories and meme theories.

And, for the record, I am already well aware of the fact that science is not based on a consensus. Though, some findings are more useful and influential than others. And, those tend to be discovered through a democratic process. It is the results that ultimately matter, not the actual people.


What is in fashion-- whether it's called sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, biological determinism, or Social Darwinism (not that anyone will ever acknowledge THAT spectre at the feast again)-- is not always right. Social Darwinism was not developed with the same standards of methods as the other items in the list.

Science build models, and those models change over time, because they can improve over time. Sometimes, people will hop onto the wrong ideas, but there is usually faulty science methodology behind that.

(It is very telling that nobody, especially Dawkins, seems to be able to write about genes as supposed "selectors" without anthropomorphizing them.) Then you should read the original papers the work was based on. They very rarely anthropomorphize.

I would argue that anthropomorphizing is important to facilitate the communication of scientific ideas to the general population. It helps us understand and connect with ideas more effectively, than using the normal, colder mode of precise verbiage more commonly found in the actual research papers.

Perhaps you disagree. But, it is important not to confuse an issue with how science is communicated with how science is actually done. They are two different things.


Evolution is random. Depends on what you mean. Mutations might be considered random, perhaps. But, the selection process is not random. This is also probably a topic for a separate thread.



So who will govern the politics of ethical scientific decisions, and in what area of our lives? Who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Who will be the judge?Why should there be a "who"? In science, the "who" is much less important than the "what".

I am not proposing any one person, nor any panel of people be in charge of these things. Just the opposite. Systems based on democracy could collectively weed out what to make of the studies.

Unless you want me to do it. I mean, I guess I wouldn't mind ruling the world, for a little while...

[UndercoverElephant]

But if they do, they will influence it either deterministically or randomly - so the point is not relevant to whether or not we have libertarian free will.

How is libertarian free will incompatible with the notion that humans can influence quantum indeterminacy?

[UndercoverElephant]

Correct, but if you operationally define what duty is, or what the greatest good for the greatest number or the golden mean for a particular characteristic, then we could theoretically investigate what decisions in which situations produce the best results. Science could then provide an 'ought'.

I don't think we should ever do that, but there is no strict boundary that separates the two.

?

Why don't you think we should ever do it??

[UndercoverElephant]

No one is saying the scientific study of ethics is the same thing as traditional ethics. The question is, are you willing to say that the scientific study of ethics has nothing to do with ethics?

As Ichneumonwasp just noted, the magisteria overlap. That's the way it goes.

Here my question: Why does anyone care? So they overlap and so there will always be argument. What's the problem?

~~ Paul

How do you decide whether euthanasia should be legalised?

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly. Why does anyone care? I'm sorry, but this really does strike me as one side trying to hide from the other.

Science doesn't attack religion. People engaged in science sometimes do, but that is different. What exactly is the problem with religious ideas being poked and prodded a bit? Are people worried that the ideas might be shown to be a sham?

I want to make a distinction between the ones that really have been shown to be a sham, and the ones which haven't, and why.

[UndercoverElephant]

So here is my question.

When anybody in the forum says something like 'the brain produces consciousness', you, very reasonably ask, 'where is your evidence?'

Quite right too - without evidence it is merely a mystical claim.

So under the terms of your own NOMA are you going to stop asking questions like these?


My intention is to help them understand why the question is not valid.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

[Darat]

...snip...

(4) is non-scientific. The word "God" doesn't have any physical or scientific meaning, unless you see God as a bearded man sitting on a cloud, interacting with the reality much like any other physical object.

...snip...

Which of course is exactly how the majority of the worlds religions view their religion... So what you are saying is that your "solution" means that the religions that most people in the world follow has to stop saying they are religion... I think you are going to have a lot of problems getting all those billions to agree to your solution.

However I am sure that you will find it easier to convince the likes of Dawkins to adopt your "solution" since of course they are interested in dealing with religion as it actually is and in dealing with what religion actually claims for itself rather than your idiosyncratic view of what religion should be.

[Darat]

How do you decide whether euthanasia should be legalised?

The first step is to ask you what you mean by "should" - in other words to understand what your value system is, without that your question is quite meaningless.

[Darat]

My intention is to help them understand why the question is not valid.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

So it's OK for you to make such claims but not for others; as I said you wish to ring fence your claims to exempt them from examination by others.

[Robin]

My intention is to help them understand why the question is not valid.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
I am not sure what you mean - which was the invalid question?

I would think the question "where is your evidence?" is far from silly.

[Robin]

Exactly. Why does anyone care? I'm sorry, but this really does strike me as one side trying to hide from the other.

Science doesn't attack religion. People engaged in science sometimes do, but that is different. What exactly is the problem with religious ideas being poked and prodded a bit? Are people worried that the ideas might be shown to be a sham?
I think we should have a Wiccan NOMA:

"An you do or recommend no harm, think as you will".

[Robin]

How do you decide whether euthanasia should be legalised?
What does that have to do with what Paul said?

[Robin]

How is libertarian free will incompatible with the notion that humans can influence quantum indeterminacy?
I don't think you read what I wrote.

Would it be libertarian free will if a human was deterministically influencing quantum indeterminacy? By definition not.

Would it be libertarian free will if a human was randomly influencing quantum indeterminacy? It wouldn't even be will

So the ability of a human to influence quantum interterminacy would be completely irrelevant to libertarian free will, unless we could do it in a way that was neither deterministic, nor random.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here are some examples of explanations.

(1) Humans are intelligent because they have large, complex brains.

This is a causal explanation. It is the complex structure of our nervous system which causes humans to have high levels of intelligence.

(2) Humans are intelligent because the more intelligent of our ancestors had a greater chance of surviving to produce offspring.

This is a Darwinian (and causal) explanation, a sort of explanation which scientists attempt to apply to almost all properties of living systems.

(3) Human religious behaviour is the the result of the need for tribal cohesion.

This is a functional (and Darwinian) explanation, in this case a socio-biological explanation. It claims that the reason why human religious behaviour exists everywhere that humans exist is because our natural state is tribal, and that tribes must be bound together with a set of shared beliefs about the nature of reality.

(4) Humans are intelligent because God designed them that way.

This is a theological explanation.

(5) Humans believe in paranormal phenomena because they are easily deluded into believing whatever they want to believe, via processes like confirmation bias.

This is a psychological explanation, which attempts to explain human behaviour in terms of human psychology.

(6) Human behaviour is dictated by the laws of physics.

This is a nomic explanation, which explains human behaviour in terms of natural laws.

(1) and (2) are the most obviously scientific of these examples. They are explanations of unambiguously physical things (or behaviours) in terms of other unambiguously physical things. (4) is non-scientific. The word "God" doesn't have any physical or scientific meaning, unless you see God as a bearded man sitting on a cloud, interacting with the reality much like any other physical object. (6) sounds scientific, but, given the problems we have in defining what a natural law is, there may be difficulties lurking here. If we were to modify it slightly to "Human behaviour is entirely dictated by the laws of physics" then we are implictly making a metaphysical claim i.e. that libertarian free will does not exist, and maybe also that physicalism and/or determinism is true, depending on precisely what is meant. This is not so much an "explanation" as an assertion, and one which may not be scientifically justified.

(3) and (5) are both controversial, and for the same reason. They are both attempts to provide a scientific explanation for complex human behaviour and beliefs, and those explanations, whilst made in the spirit of science and whilst bringing whatever scientific knowledge is available to bear, tend to be disputed by people who do not accept that the ideological and metaphysical framework which is suitable for science is also applicable to human psychology.


That's nice. What difference does any of that make? We are not discussing the fact that many theories are possible, but that with science we take a theory and examine the evidence. We go with the theory that explains the evidence best and does not unnecessarily multiply the complexity of the situation.



But you did argue that materialism was simpler than dualism. This is true, but Occam's razor is no good if materialism, although simpler, does not fit with the available facts. And what facts are available is...disputed.


I argued that monism is simpler than dualism. I think it is senseless to argue about a type of monism. They must all be the same.

That facts are disputable is exactly why I gave the examples that I did. If we show that we can correlate certain brain activities with a particular behavior and build an artificial brain that helps us to understand the process of how experiences are possible, then we have a simpler explanation for experience than that people are actually in touch with God who, by definition, in most Christian circles (the example you proposed) is of a different substance.




Here's the problem with that:

Jones eats a pound of arsenic and dies within 24 hours. No problems here for the covering law approach to scientific explanation, you might think. We can have a law which states that all people who eat a pound of arsenic will die within 24 hours, Jones ate a pound of arsenic and now he's dead. We have our explanation!

The problem is that Jones did not die of arsenic poisoning, but was run over by a bus.

The general form of this problem is that even if the premises of the proposed explanations are true, they may still be the wrong explanation for the explanandum. In other words, since you have assumed that science can answer what is essentially a metaphysical problem, your scientific explanation, whilst being the "inference to the best explanation" in terms of science, isn't even necessarily the best scientific explanation, let alone the correct one.


Dude, once again, I am not arguing what *is*. Science does not argue what *is*. It examines the evidence, builds a model and provides the best explanation with the available evidence. If there is better evidence, then the model changes, simple as that. We don't decide on complex issues such as how the brain works with a single line of evidence. In fact, I provided in that short example several different lines of evidence, not one. Few people are going to accept that we have an explanation for particular types of experience without excellent evidence.

How does anything you have written above tell me that science and religion do not overlap? I thought this was supposed to be a thread about NOMA, not a thread where UE decides to tell other people that they are making metaphysical claims especially when they are not. What metaphysical claim have I made? I don't have the slightest idea what really *is*. How is it that I am suddenly making metaphysical claims?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That is defended is elsewhere. Put simply, science itself (and therefore "physicalism" as commonly understood) has led us to the point where indeterminacy is part of our physical theory. This alone is enough to make the skeptics vs mystics/paranormalists debate unresolvable, because it provides a possible mechanism for mystical or paranormal phenomena which could potentially escape scientific testing. In the end it comes down to the mystic saying "I directly experienced it" and the skeptic saying "That's not good enough evidence to justify my acceptance of your claim". The debate has nowhere to go after that. They can continue arguing all they like...they won't get anywhere.

I don't really have a pony in this race but . . . surely different people have different mystical experiences (eg they find God, or Oneness with the Universe, or start loving trees, or . . . . ). As a strict Materialist, I see no evidence that any are correct and then call a pox on all your houses.

If it doesn't intersect with reality then it can't be measured. If it can't be measured then it is not real. :(

[quixotecoyote]

If it doesn't intersect with reality then it can't be measure. If it can't be measured then it is not real. :(

Wouldn't it be better to say that if it doesn't intersect with reality then it is not real?

[Beth]

That is defended is elsewhere. Put simply, science itself (and therefore "physicalism" as commonly understood) has led us to the point where indeterminacy is part of our physical theory. This alone is enough to make the skeptics vs mystics/paranormalists debate unresolvable, because it provides a possible mechanism for mystical or paranormal phenomena which could potentially escape scientific testing. In the end it comes down to the mystic saying "I directly experienced it" and the skeptic saying "That's not good enough evidence to justify my acceptance of your claim". The debate has nowhere to go after that. They can continue arguing all they like...they won't get anywhere. I think they must like arguing ;)

I don't think you read what I wrote.

Would it be libertarian free will if a human was deterministically influencing quantum indeterminacy? By definition not.

Would it be libertarian free will if a human was randomly influencing quantum indeterminacy? It wouldn't even be will

So the ability of a human to influence quantum interterminacy would be completely irrelevant to libertarian free will, unless we could do it in a way that was neither deterministic, nor random.

What about a system that has elements of both? I don't think that observation invalidates the concept of free will. I know you feel they are mutually exclusive, but I don't really comprehend why.

That's nice. What difference does any of that make? We are not discussing the fact that many theories are possible, but that with science we take a theory and examine the evidence. We go with the theory that explains the evidence best and does not unnecessarily multiply the complexity of the situation.

This all makes sense, but different starting assumptions will still lead to different conclusions. It seems to me that science and religion are like two sides of the same coin in regards to the basic foundational assumption. Science assumes nothing but materialistic explanations are required to explain our observations and proceeds from there. Religion assumes that there is something more than the material world of our senses.

How does anything you have written above tell me that science and religion do not overlap? [/QUOTE] Like two sides of the same coin, there is no overlap. Only a common border. The third side so to speak.

I have to say, while it does seem like science's sphere of explanation grows larger, I don't think that religion's sphere has grown smaller.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Wouldn't it be better to say that if it doesn't intersect with reality then it is not real?

I think I am trying to include a degree of subtlety that, maybe, even I don't understand. :)

[Robin]

What about a system that has elements of both?
In fact that was the point I made in my first post on this forum.

But then I have no problem with a definition of free will that is compatible with determinism, so it is hardly my argument.
I don't think that observation invalidates the concept of free will. I know you feel they are mutually exclusive, but I don't really comprehend why.
I don't know why you think that I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

I am not even sure what libertarian free will means, all I know is that supporters of the concept consider it incompatible with determinism. And random events cannot be called volition at all.

If the free willies are willing to accept that a combination of randomness and determinism can deliver free will (what ever free will is) then fine - no argument.

[Robin]

However maybe if we want to do the free will thing again someone should start a new thread - let's keep this on track.

[Robin]

By the way, Beth - my son is asking what your Avatar is.

[zooterkin]

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
No, I think you've had some pretty sensible answers...

Because we have a social and political need to enact laws to cover everything from euthanasia to the teaching of creationism in science classes. These are ultimately ethical decisions.

Fine, why do these need to be assigned to 'science', as opposed to society in general? It makes sense that they should be based on reality, not what someone's imaginary friend tells them, of course. I notice you don't seem to be addressing the issues that there is not just one religion with a single world-view, while science is not per se a competing world view, it is based on empirical, repeatable observation, and there are many believers of many religions who are part of science.

The case of skeptics against the creationist boils down to a claim about ethics: that it is unethical to mislead a person into believing that a specific claim has scientific support when no such support exists.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, though I'm not sure how useful a view that is, as it seems self-evident that what should be taught in science lessons is, well, science.

[westprog]

Correct, but if you operationally define what duty is, or what the greatest good for the greatest number or the golden mean for a particular characteristic, then we could theoretically investigate what decisions in which situations produce the best results. Science could then provide an 'ought'.

I don't think we should ever do that, but there is no strict boundary that separates the two.

I don't agree that science shouldn't be used in coming to ethical decisions. Is it ethical to squirt chemical solutions into newborn children? The question only makes sense in a context where scientific knowledge is available.

But the question "should one immunise babies against disease" is not a scientific question. Nor is "should we act for the greatest good of the greatest number" or "should we do our duty".

[westprog]

Okay, slight modification: Science can address ethical issues, which can then be used to inform us about what the most effective ethical standards might be, based on our needs and interests.

The more science learns about how and why we behave the way we do, and which survival strategies best fit our needs, the more it will appear as though science is "doing ethics", even if it is not strictly true; and that there are a few "middlemen" between the scientists and policy makers.
"

But saying that science is "doing ethics" will continue to be untrue - and just as in the Soviet Union, it would be a very dangerous thing if people started to believe that science could determine how people should behave.

[westprog]

Which of course is exactly how the majority of the worlds religions view their religion... So what you are saying is that your "solution" means that the religions that most people in the world follow has to stop saying they are religion... I think you are going to have a lot of problems getting all those billions to agree to your solution.


It certainly seems to be how many JREF atheists see God.

[zooterkin]

It certainly seems to be how many JREF atheists see God.

Er, what?

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't really have a pony in this race but . . . surely different people have different mystical experiences (eg they find God, or Oneness with the Universe, or start loving trees, or . . . . ). As a strict Materialist, I see no evidence that any are correct and then call a pox on all your houses.

If it doesn't intersect with reality then it can't be measured. If it can't be measured then it is not real. :(

That's why I specified that the mechanism is via quantum indeterminacy. The claim you've just made is one of the specific claims I am trying to debunk.

Imagine the following situation: whichever of the experiences you've described are actually real (that means they are actually caused by something external to the person experiencing them and not a delusion) AND they only manifest via quantum indeterminacy. Also imagine that they are "shy", i.e. they are inconsistent and tend not to manifest in the presence of skeptics. This is not a straw man - there are plenty of people who believe in exactly this sort of phenomena. NOW...is it "real"? Yes, quantum indeterminacy is actually being affected. Can it be measured by science? No, because the phenomenal in question are (a) unrepeatable/unreliable and (b) depend on a complex set of subjective judgements by the person experiencing them (i.e. you would have to know the entire life history and belief system of the person concerned, and the only person who can know that is the person concerned.)

So in fact it is possible for a type of causality like this to be both real and undetectable by science. It may be completely undectectable (and still real) or it may only be detectable subjectively (and still real.)

[UndercoverElephant]

No, I think you've had some pretty sensible answers...


Not if you analyse what the words actually mean. The answers only make sense if you don't ask any difficult questions about them. Start probing around a bit and you'll see they are silly.


Fine, why do these need to be assigned to 'science', as opposed to society in general?


I didn't say that ethics should be assigned to science.


It makes sense that they should be based on reality, not what someone's imaginary friend tells them, of course. I notice you don't seem to be addressing the issues that there is not just one religion with a single world-view, while science is not per se a competing world view, it is based on empirical, repeatable observation, and there are many believers of many religions who are part of science.


Why do you think I've ignored any of that? All the religions may be different, but they share some characteristics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Er, what?

I understood perfectly what he meant. Darat basically said that most religions have a very simplistic, literalist interpretation of their own scriptures - e.g. that most Christians think of God as a bearded man in the clouds and the Bible is literally true. Westprog was pointing out that actually this is how most atheists at the JREF would like to portray religion. It does, after all, make it rather an easy target.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This all makes sense, but different starting assumptions will still lead to different conclusions. It seems to me that science and religion are like two sides of the same coin in regards to the basic foundational assumption. Science assumes nothing but materialistic explanations are required to explain our observations and proceeds from there. Religion assumes that there is something more than the material world of our senses.

Well, yes, of course different starting assumptions will lead to different conclusions. But the issue is whether or not there is overlap, not that you can assume something different from the outset.

Here is a direct parallel to the above discussion: did evolution by means of natural selection disprove the existence of a designer?

We use hypotheses tested against evidence to provide a best fit explanation and apply parsimony to the result to help keep our best guess in line so that we do not add unnecessary baggage. That someone can assume dualism does not mean that that assumption lives in an untouchable category. We can still investigate a claim based in dualism and look at the evidence. That someone can still claim that dualism is correct is beside the point. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, people can believe whatever they want to believe.

The issue here is whether or not the magisteria overlap. If we can investigate religion, then they overlap. We simply can investigate subjective experiences that are held in common. What science cannot investigate are individual subjective experiences that have no common ground.

Like two sides of the same coin, there is no overlap. Only a common border. The third side so to speak.

I have to say, while it does seem like science's sphere of explanation grows larger, I don't think that religion's sphere has grown smaller.


There is an area of non-overlap as I have repeatedly said, but it is a much smaller sphere -- individual subjective experiences that do not share common ground. Science cannot go there.

The problem with speaking of two sides of the same coin is that it isn't the same coin. Dualism has virtually, and probably actually, insurmountable problems inherent to it. Philosophically it is a horrible answer; and that is the perspective from which most all religions approach the world.

[UndercoverElephant]

Wouldn't it be better to say that if it doesn't intersect with reality then it is not real?

Yes.

Whether or not something "intersects with reality" is not the same question as whether or not it can be detected or by what methods it might be detectable. There is no reason to believe that anything which affects reality is necessarily detectable, or necessarily detectable by science. It all depends on the precise nature of the interaction.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, yes, of course different starting assumptions will lead to different conclusions. But the issue is whether or not there is overlap, not that you can assume something different from the outset.

Here is a direct parallel to the above discussion: did evolution by means of natural selection disprove the existence of a designer?


No, it just made the designer hypothesis much harder to defend.

[UndercoverElephant]

However maybe if we want to do the free will thing again someone should start a new thread - let's keep this on track.

Indeed, I really can't be bothered to go there anyway. In this thread I am deliberately defend a very vague notion of mysticism and paranormalism: that human actions or things unspecified can influence quantum indeterminism in scientifically-undetectable ways. It makes little difference at this point whether you want to call this "free will", "witchcraft", "ESP" or anything else. Call it what you like. This is what is relevant:

(a) it's real
(b) science can't reliably investigate it
(c) it's weird enough that most of the people on this board naturally want to reject it
(d) it is related to religious beliefs.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't agree that science shouldn't be used in coming to ethical decisions. Is it ethical to squirt chemical solutions into newborn children? The question only makes sense in a context where scientific knowledge is available.

The issue of not carrying out a program to determine what is ethical by scientific means would be unethical. Just think about what types of experiments would need to be carried out to determine in each situation what resulted in the best course of action given a set beginning point (duty, character, utilitarianism).

But the question "should one immunise babies against disease" is not a scientific question. Nor is "should we act for the greatest good of the greatest number" or "should we do our duty".


Should yo immunize your babies against disease does have an answer, but it depends on your starting assumption. You have to start with character, duty, or utilitarian assumptions and we could examine what has the best outcome in each situation. It will not answer for the people involved since they will need to make up their own mind, but it can answer what the best course of action is -- in other words, what they should do.

As to answering the question "should we act for the greatest good, by the golden mean or according to duty", of course science cannot answer that question -- those are starting assumptions that must be operationalized. Scientific investigation could best give utilitarian answers. But that will always be unsatisfying.

The issue at hand was not "can science answer every question under the sun", but can science do ethics. Theoretically it can. I don't think we want to go there, at least not to any great detail unless someone wants to actually throw people on train tracks to save three guys hurtling to their deaths.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it just made the designer hypothesis much harder to defend.


Exactly. That is the point I am making with the investigation of 'feeling one with God' or whatever it was originally. Science can go there. It never disproves another explanation; it simply makes other more unwieldy explanations less likely (or harder to defend).

As long as there are multiple people experiencing the same thing we can investigate it theoretically. So, there simply is no absolute barrier.

People can still believe whatever they want to believe, though.

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly. That is the point I am making with the investigation of 'feeling one with God' or whatever it was originally. Science can go there. It never disproves another explanation; it simply makes other more unwieldy explanations less likely (or harder to defend).


The two cases are not the same. The evolution of life on earth is not an ineffable "feeling". We have masses and masses of evidence to go on - all that was needed was somebody like Darwin to put all the evidence together and work out the theory. In the case of "feeling one with God" there is no reliable way to collect the evidence. We can't collect samples of all the different "feelings" and compare them.

The difference between the two cases is that a skeptic like yourself approaches the investigation with a certain set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and you end up claiming you can use Occam's razor to end up coming to a conclusion which, strangely enough, happens to agree with your initial assumptions! This is NOT science, wasp.

You might just as well have said "atheism is more parsimonious than theism, therefore we can reject it using Occam's razor."



As long as there are multiple people experiencing the same thing we can investigate it theoretically. So, there simply is no absolute barrier.


How can you establishing that they are experiencing the same thing?

[Ichneumonwasp]

The two cases are not the same. The evolution of life on earth is not an ineffable "feeling". We have masses and masses of evidence to go on - all that was needed was somebody like Darwin to put all the evidence together and work out the theory. In the case of "feeling one with God" there is no reliable way to collect the evidence. We can't collect samples of all the different "feelings" and compare them.

The difference between the two cases is that a skeptic like yourself approaches the investigation with a certain set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and you end up claiming you can use Occam's razor to end up coming to a conclusion which, strangely enough, happens to agree with your initial assumptions! This is NOT science, wasp.

You might just as well have said "atheism is more parsimonious than theism, therefore we can reject it using Occam's razor."


Listen to me. This is not about rejecting ideas out of hand. I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing. I have to keep repeating to you that I am not claiming anything absolute about reality and that science does not either. It provides a best fit explanation. We have no reason to accept a set of assumptions that have serious philosophical problems attached. Please stop trying to reframe what I say in terms of

As to the issue of 'rejecting God', that depends, in part, on what the definition of God is. I, and many others, have decided that there is no reason to accept the idea of a God that is based in dualism, absent evidence, because dualism is fraught with serious philosophical problems. That is not a scientific claim. It is a philosophical one. There is no final test for God. You know that. That does not mean that atheism is more likely than theism, because it depends on what you mean by theism. And all of this depends on the evidence. It would be silly to reject the existence of God based solely on parsimony. I don't know anyone who does or would do that. That issue, like others, depends on more than one line of thought -- hypothesis with or without evidence and parsimony.

The analogy with natural selection and subjective experience is to show that they use similar approaches. Both begin with questions about which we can form hypotheses that can be tested so that we can arrive at an explanatory framework. Once we have the evidence to support the conclusion -- not a final answer -- then we go with the most parsimonious answer. Since the most parsimonious answer, if we can arrive at a mechanistic causal account, is that there is only one substance (because that is all that is required if the question can be accounted for in terms of what we already know) then we conclude that it is more likely that we have a good explanation.

It could very well be that some things cannot be explained by mechanistic accounts. If that is the case, then the most parsimonious answer will be that there is more than one substance. We simply don't have good evidence that is the case.

You can continue to accuse me and others of any number of different things -- you've done it all along -- but your assertions simply do not match reality. We go where the evidence takes us.

And none of your replies, as of yet, answer the challenge to NOMA. Science can ask questions in the area you seem to want to exclude it. Wasn't this what the thread was supposed to be about?


How can you establishing that they are experiencing the same thing?


You ask them. They compare. If we find a common source, then it looks like we have an answer. The same way we establish commonality with all mental processes -- through language.

[UndercoverElephant]

It could very well be that some things cannot be explained by mechanistic accounts. If that is the case, then the most parsimonious answer will be that there is more than one substance. We simply don't have good evidence that is the case.


I simply do not agree, wasp. You have come to a subjective assessment about what good evidence we have that it is the case. I have come to a rather different subjective assessment. The difference is that you apparently want to impose your own subjective assessment on me. Sorry, but I don't want YOUR assessment of what needs to be explained or what evidence we have to reject a mechanistic materialism. I'm happy with my own, thanks all the same.



You can continue to accuse me and others of any number of different things -- you've done it all along -- but your assertions simply do not match reality. We go where the evidence takes us.


Says you. I say you are ignoring certain important bits of evidence, namely that we are conscious when a mechnistic materialism implies we should not be. We can agree to disagree on this, but I have no idea why you are expecting ME to accept YOUR metaphysical assumptions.

And YES you are making metaphysical assumptions, ichneumonwasp. Every time you claim that materialistic monism is a "better explanation" than dualism or anything else, you are demonstrating that this is the case. Make some other assumptions and something else suddenly looks like a better explanation.



And none of your replies, as of yet, answer the challenge to NOMA. Science can ask questions in the area you seem to want to exclude it.


You have not demonstrated that.



You ask them. They compare.

Scientist: What does red look like to you?
Person A: Err...
Person B: Err...

Hey! their answers matched up! Must mean that red looks the same to both of them! :rolleyes:

[Darat]

I understood perfectly what he meant. Darat basically said that most religions have a very simplistic, literalist interpretation of their own scriptures - e.g. that most Christians think of God as a bearded man in the clouds and the Bible is literally true. Westprog was pointing out that actually this is how most atheists at the JREF would like to portray religion. It does, after all, make it rather an easy target.

I know it's an appeal to authority but I can assure you that I did not say that.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I simply do not agree, wasp. You have come to a subjective assessment about what good evidence we have that it is the case. I have come to a rather different subjective assessment. The difference is that you apparently want to impose your own subjective assessment on me. Sorry, but I don't want YOUR assessment of what needs to be explained or what evidence we have to reject a mechanistic materialism. I'm happy with my own, thanks all the same.

Wait a second now. I proposed a hypothetical not a claim about what evidence we have.

We do have good evidence that we probably can explain subjective experiences, but I have never claimed that we have such explanations already. Look back at the initial discussion. It was a hypothetical situation that I proposed.



Says you. I say you are ignoring certain important bits of evidence, namely that we are conscious when a mechnistic materialism implies we should not be. We can agree to disagree on this, but I have no idea why you are expecting ME to accept YOUR metaphysical assumptions.

What evidence? Let me examine it. When are we conscious when we should not be?


And YES you are making metaphysical assumptions, ichneumonwasp. Every time you claim that materialistic monism is a "better explanation" than dualism or anything else, you are demonstrating that this is the case. Make some other assumptions and something else suddenly looks like a better explanation.

Dude, I keep saying that it is more parsimonious. Because it is. Monism is simpler than dualism. Dualism has many problems.

I am not making a claim about what actually *is*, only what is more likely.



You have not demonstrated that.

I haven't demonstrated that science can ask questions about subjective experiences when they are shared by groups of people? Really?

I didn't say that science gave definitive answers. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Do you really want to claim that science cannot investigate this? On what possible basis?



Scientist: What does red look like to you?
Person A: Err...
Person B: Err...

Hey! their answers matched up! Must mean that red looks the same to both of them! :rolleyes:


If you want to act foolish, please do so on your own time. If you want to examine this issue critically, as an adult, please let me know when you are ready.

Real question: What color do you see?

Person A: red
Person B: red

Scientist: OK, let's see why you both experience the same thing.

Real question:

Why do you believe in God?

Person A: because I feel his presence
Person B: because I feel his presence
.
.
.
.
.
Person X: because I feel his presence

Scientist: OK, let's examine why you experience the same thing

[westprog]

As to answering the question "should we act for the greatest good, by the golden mean or according to duty", of course science cannot answer that question -- those are starting assumptions that must be operationalized. Scientific investigation could best give utilitarian answers. But that will always be unsatisfying.

The issue at hand was not "can science answer every question under the sun", but can science do ethics. Theoretically it can. I don't think we want to go there, at least not to any great detail unless someone wants to actually throw people on train tracks to save three guys hurtling to their deaths.

But science simply isn't doing ethics. What happens when you do something isn't a part of science - it's the whole of science. The consequences of actions are science. What you should do is ethics. There is no overlap, and I don't see what the benefits are in pretending that some subsets of science deals with ethics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Real question: What color do you see?

Person A: red
Person B: red

Scientist: OK, let's see why you both experience the same thing.


At which point it has all gone horribly wrong. The scientist has not yet established that they experience the same thing, but he is already trying to find out why they experience the same thing. All the scientist has established is that they are SAYING the same thing.



Real question:

Why do you believe in God?

Person A: because I feel his presence
Person B: because I feel his presence

Person X: because I feel his presence

Scientist: OK, let's examine why you experience the same thing

Same problem.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No logic can demonstrate that humans/"powers unspecified" can or cannot influence quantum indeterminacy.
Agreed, but what good does this do for the libertarian? You have to show that whatever influences our decisions can sometimes be neither deterministic nor arbitrary.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How do you decide whether euthanasia should be legalised?
By public debate dosed with the usual amount of annoying politics. What does this have to do with NOMA?

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

At which point it has all gone horribly wrong. The scientist has not yet established that they experience the same thing, but he is already trying to find out why they experience the same thing. All the scientist has established is that they are SAYING the same thing.

Why, what is wrong? What we are after is a causal explanation of the experience of red. It actually doesn't matter if the experience is precisely the same in the two people, because the issue is not what *is*, but what can be examined in the experience. They have learned to use the same word for the same experience; and we can theoretically examine what happens in each brain that explains those experiences. We can knock out the area responsible for the experience of red and see if the experience disappears. We can then replace the area and see if the experience reappears. We can theoretically build an artificial brain and see if that area is responsible for experiencing red. We can provide an explanatory model for experiencing red, then. It's a model that works and has explanatory power. Just as evolution by means of natural selection provides the same explanatory power. That is what science does.

If you are worried about how close this is to reality, then, like everything else in science, we attack the problem from another angle to ensure that we are not testing the wrong thing. We show various shades of red. We use different wavelengths of light. We use different combinations of light/tone/etc. that produces the sensation of red reliably in people. We control for the fact that they might be experiencing something different, but of course we can never prove it;but with each of these we correlate the sensation of seeing red with particular types of brain activity. Science, again, does not concern itself with proof of what *is*, but with the rules of the game that we can see around us.


Your answers all rotate around what *is*. That is not what science does; you know that; we all know that. But science can ask questions about the way people experience subjectively and build explanatory models. That is why NOMA as you have defined it doesn't work with the exception of a very small area where people have individual, non-repeated subjective experiences. Science can't go there.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But science simply isn't doing ethics. What happens when you do something isn't a part of science - it's the whole of science. The consequences of actions are science. What you should do is ethics. There is no overlap, and I don't see what the benefits are in pretending that some subsets of science deals with ethics.

I'm afraid I didn't follow that. Could you rephrase it please?

There isn't any benefit to saying that some subset of science can deal with ethics. I am not advocating that science do ethics. The issue was raised that science cannot do ethics, not that it does or that it should. I think it is wrong to say that science can't do ethics, because it simply can. Given a starting point with well defined premises and goals, we can test what the best answer would be in a particular situation. We just can. That would amount to 'doing ethics' because it would tell us -- given the constraints of the original premises -- what the best decision would be in a particular situation. That is what ethics is all about - what we should do.

[Gawdzilla]

Utter Idiot award to anyone who would trust the god-botherers to keep their side of the bargain.

[Beth]

In fact that was the point I made in my first post on this forum.

But then I have no problem with a definition of free will that is compatible with determinism, so it is hardly my argument.

I don't know why you think that I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Sorry. I must have gotten confused. I often forget that people here are often referring to 'libertarian' free will.

By the way, Beth - my son is asking what your Avatar is.

It's a Robot cat chasing a robot mouse. Here's a bigger copy. It's one of my husband's works; he's a fantastic digital artist. You can find more of his artwork at his web site, markclarkson.com

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That's why I specified that the mechanism is via quantum indeterminacy. The claim you've just made is one of the specific claims I am trying to debunk.

Imagine the following situation: whichever of the experiences you've described are actually real (that means they are actually caused by something external to the person experiencing them and not a delusion) AND they only manifest via quantum indeterminacy. Also imagine that they are "shy", i.e. they are inconsistent and tend not to manifest in the presence of skeptics. This is not a straw man - there are plenty of people who believe in exactly this sort of phenomena. NOW...is it "real"? Yes, quantum indeterminacy is actually being affected. Can it be measured by science? No, because the phenomenal in question are (a) unrepeatable/unreliable and (b) depend on a complex set of subjective judgements by the person experiencing them (i.e. you would have to know the entire life history and belief system of the person concerned, and the only person who can know that is the person concerned.)

So in fact it is possible for a type of causality like this to be both real and undetectable by science. It may be completely undectectable (and still real) or it may only be detectable subjectively (and still real.)

Nope. Have the phenomenon tested by a believer a statistically significant number of times. It either exists or doesn't exist. In the past I have read what J B Rhine did with parapsychology. He believed. His results did not convince the scientific community,

[Wowbagger]

How do you decide whether euthanasia should be legalised?
Careful Cost/Benefit analysis could be one way. We have the technology to keep people in comas (and, by some definitions, that means "alive") almost indefinitely. But, this technology is not free. There are costs involved.

Is keeping the person alive worth the costs it will take, if we consider all of the person's contributions to society, or to family and friends. And, of course, the person's wishes, if they have a legal will. (ETA: People might be more productive in a society where they know that their final wishes are likely be granted, as long as they are reasonable.)

This is a framework for forming a good, science-informed reason to allow the terminally ill and suffering to die, at least.

Though, it does not work for seemingly healthy people, who could still easily contribute to society, (even if they don't see it that way). Many of the reasons healthy-looking people want to kill themselves is almost always from a more hidden ailment: Severe depression, mental illness, or perhaps even a parasite. And, these must be investigated, before we allow someone to go through with the action. We can also help develop strategies to prevent more humans from thoughts of suicide, as well.

Once again, we see nothing wrong with science stepping in, and contributing to ethical issues.

[tsig]

I know it's an appeal to authority but I can assure you that I did not say that.

Darat you should know by now that it's not what you say but what someone hears that counts. Some seem to have their input filter tuned so fine that all they can hear is "I agree" anything else is perceived as an attack and must be ruthlessly counter attacked with all weapons at their command such as strawmen, special pleading, poisoning the well, ect. ect. ect.

[westprog]

I'm afraid I didn't follow that. Could you rephrase it please?

There isn't any benefit to saying that some subset of science can deal with ethics. I am not advocating that science do ethics. The issue was raised that science cannot do ethics, not that it does or that it should. I think it is wrong to say that science can't do ethics, because it simply can. Given a starting point with well defined premises and goals, we can test what the best answer would be in a particular situation. We just can. That would amount to 'doing ethics' because it would tell us -- given the constraints of the original premises -- what the best decision would be in a particular situation. That is what ethics is all about - what we should do.

You are describing things that science can do, but they don't include ethics, unless you redefine ethics to include things that science can do. All science can do is inform ethical decisions. No ethical decision can ever be scientifically based, unless some universal moral principle can be scientifically discovered, and I don't think that's likely to happen.

Any scientific data which seems to direct one course of action could be used to direct the opposite course of action simply by choosing a different set of principles on which to act.

People choose their course of action on two bases - what is likely to happen, and what consequences they desire to ensue. The first is science, the second is ethics - or at least contains ethics. What consequences one desires to ensue has nothing to do with science, and cannot.

[westprog]

Careful Cost/Benefit analysis could be one way. We have the technology to keep people in comas (and, by some definitions, that means "alive") almost indefinitely. But, this technology is not free. There are costs involved.

Is keeping the person alive worth the costs it will take, if we consider all of the person's contributions to society, or to family and friends. And, of course, the person's wishes, if they have a legal will. (ETA: People might be more productive in a society where they know that their final wishes are likely be granted, as long as they are reasonable.)

This is a framework for forming a good, science-informed reason to allow the terminally ill and suffering to die, at least.

Though, it does not work for seemingly healthy people, who could still easily contribute to society, (even if they don't see it that way). Many of the reasons healthy-looking people want to kill themselves is almost always from a more hidden ailment: Severe depression, mental illness, or perhaps even a parasite. And, these must be investigated, before we allow someone to go through with the action. We can also help develop strategies to prevent more humans from thoughts of suicide, as well.

Once again, we see nothing wrong with science stepping in, and contributing to ethical issues.

But science can do nothing to tell us whether or not euthenasia is right or wrong. The conclusions that we come to will depend on what value we place on human life - which is not a scientific matter.

I don't see what is gained by the blurring of what is a very clear boundary - the pretence that we can somehow avoid hard choices by pretending that science says something about matters on which it is inevitably silent. It's bad science and bad ethics, and the consequences are usually bad.

[Robin]

I know it's an appeal to authority but I can assure you that I did not say that.
I went and checked - you didn't say that. You didn't even imply it. Not even remotely.

Maybe there should be a separate section in the NOMA for straw man arguments.

[Wowbagger]

But science can do nothing to tell us whether or not euthenasia is right or wrong.Science can help inform us of the costs and benefits. Which amounts to the same thing, if we choose to consider that in our decision making.

We don't need science to do this, perhaps. But, the option is there, if anyone wants it.

The conclusions that we come to will depend on what value we place on human life - which is not a scientific matter. How much value we place on human life follows from evolutionary theory; replication theories in particular.

We don't necessarily need science to tell us how to value humans. It happens automatically. But, science can show us why, with details that become more precise over time.


ETA: Just to be clear: My argument is NOT that science must stick its nose in these things. My argument is that there is nothing that can stop it from doing so, if someone is going to do so. NOMA certainly can't stop it. NOMA has nothing productive to add to the manner. THAT is my point.

[UndercoverElephant]

I went and checked - you didn't say that. You didn't even imply it. Not even remotely.

Maybe there should be a separate section in the NOMA for straw man arguments.

He accused himself of an appeal to authority. It had nothing to do with me...

[UndercoverElephant]

Nope. Have the phenomenon tested by a believer a statistically significant number of times.

Ah right...so you exclude all the skeptics from the process, the believers come up with a positive result and we expect the skeptics to accept it?

Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

[Robin]

Indeed, I really can't be bothered to go there anyway. In this thread I am deliberately defend a very vague notion of mysticism and paranormalism: that human actions or things unspecified can influence quantum indeterminism in scientifically-undetectable ways. It makes little difference at this point whether you want to call this "free will", "witchcraft", "ESP" or anything else. Call it what you like. This is what is relevant:

(a) it's real
Ah, now this is what we are talking about. The way this looks is that you want to make absolutist claims about the reality of some vaguely specified phenomenon, and you want to set up a NOMA that protects you from people asking for evidence.

This may not be your motivation, but when you make claims like this, that is how it looks.
(b) science can't reliably investigate it
And, so far as we know, there is no way whatsoever of reliably investigating it. Or even unreliably investigating it.
(c) it's weird enough that most of the people on this board naturally want to reject it
Why do you say these things when you know they are wrong?

There is nothing particularly weird about paranormal claims, they are just unevidenced.

Mainstream science shows us stuff that is much weirder and people on this board accept it, because there is evidence for it.
(d) it is related to religious beliefs.
A rather tenuous relationship at the moment - you are specifically referring to your own beliefs, I see no evidence that mainstream theologians would want to have a bar of this kind of stuff.

In short, you need to show that this is a NOMA between science and religion, and not a NOMA between science and UndercoverElephant.

[Robin]

He accused himself of an appeal to authority. It had nothing to do with me...
That doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented him though, does it?

[UndercoverElephant]

That doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented him though, does it?

I didn't misrepresent him. Can we just get back to the topic, please?

[Robin]

Ah right...so you exclude all the skeptics from the process, the believers come up with a positive result and we expect the skeptics to accept it?

Yeah, right... :rolleyes:
Believers like John Polkinghorne and Frances Collins - I would accept their word about the outcome of a scientific experiment.

[Robin]

I didn't misrepresent him. Can we just get back to the topic, please?
You mean you just misunderstood?

Or are you saying that you accurately represented his position? Even though he said or implied nothing at all about bearded men in the sky?

[Robin]

Also, this is very much on topic Geoff, because you are trying to set up the impression that the only other kind of religiosity than the one described in your NOMA is a literalistic, naive man-in-the-sky sort of religion.

False dichotomy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ah right...so you exclude all the skeptics from the process, the believers come up with a positive result and we expect the skeptics to accept it?

Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

Show us your work and even Randi will accept it. See the MDC. Rhine has been debunked.

Every now and again in science someone produces a result contrary to current theory. Sometimes they are actually proved correct eg High-temperature_superconductivity. That's the way reality works.

:boggled:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Science does not do ethics, never has and almost certainly never will. There is no "ought" in science. There's a common misapprehension that studies of how ethical systems arise, and biological investigations as to what makes altruistic and selfish behaviour happen are the same thing as studying ethics. They are not - and scientists usually know as much.

I think considering "studying ethics" or morality to be the same as "doing" ethics or making "ought" judgements is silly.

Both science and religion have ideas about how to explain morality (its origins, for examples). One generates testable hypotheses, and the other does not.

[Robin]

Show us your work and even Randi will accept it. See the MDC. Rhine has been debunked.

Every now and again in science someone produces a result contrary to current theory. Sometimes they are actually proved correct eg High-temperature_superconductivity. That's the way reality works.

:boggled:
And this is a reason that it is impractible for the NOMA to put a blanket ban on propositions that contradict science.

These propositions can be wrong, but occasionally they can also be an advance in our understanding.

[UndercoverElephant]

Believers like John Polkinghorne and Frances Collins - I would accept their word about the outcome of a scientific experiment.

You might. James Randi would not.

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, this is very much on topic Geoff, because you are trying to set up the impression that the only other kind of religiosity than the one described in your NOMA is a literalistic, naive man-in-the-sky sort of religion.

False dichotomy.

I didn't set up that dichotomy. There are a great many sorts of religion.

[UndercoverElephant]

Show us your work and even Randi will accept it. See the MDC. Rhine has been debunked.

Every now and again in science someone produces a result contrary to current theory. Sometimes they are actually proved correct eg High-temperature_superconductivity. That's the way reality works.

:boggled:

This process has been carried out in reality.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/experimentereffect.html

http://www.skepdic.com/experimentereffect.html


Alcock does not think it bodes well for psi as a scientific subject if only psi-conducive researchers can replicate studies.

...what a risky adventure it would be to yield to special pleading and relax the very rules of scientific methodology that help to weed out error, self-delusion and fraud in order to admit claims that violate the basic tenets of science as we know it (2003, p. 35).

Or, as Matthew D. Smith (2003) puts it: "if sceptical researchers wishing to attempt replication cannot be expected to be successful due to their a priori beliefs about psi....then parapsychology cannot be treated as a truly scientific discipline (p.82).

[Robin]

You might. James Randi would not.
And similarly his counterparts on the other side - like you - would not accept the result if a string of believers tested the result and came up with nothing.

But that does not change the fact that even phenomena that somehow detect skepticism and run away can still be tested.

And you may not believe it, but science is not about convincing James Randi.

[UndercoverElephant]

And this is a reason that it is impractible for the NOMA to put a blanket ban on propositions that contradict science.

These propositions can be wrong, but occasionally they can also be an advance in our understanding.

Eh?

How can a claim which already been shown wrong by science advance our understanding?

[UndercoverElephant]

And similarly his counterparts on the other side - like you - would not accept the result if a string of believers tested the result and came up with nothing.


What is there to not accept? If someone sets up a test and it gets a negative result then it was a test that got a negative result. I have no problems with that.

[Robin]

I didn't set up that dichotomy. There are a great many sorts of religion.
Darat referred to religious beliefs that were different to the type described in your NOMA, yes?

You explicitly asserted that he was referring to "bearded man in the clouds" sorts of religious beliefs -yes?

Therefore - by a process of elimination - you were claiming that any kind of religious belief that was different to the type described in your NOMA were "bearded man in the clouds" sorts of religious beliefs.

So do you accept that the majority of religious beliefs in the world are neither the type described in your NOMA nor "bearded man in the clouds" beliefs?

[Robin]

Eh?

How can a claim which already been shown wrong by science advance our understanding?
I said a claim that contradicts science (as you did in your NOMA) - do you really think I don't notice your little semantic sleights of hand?

Claims which contradict science are ones that show our previous understanding of something was wrong.

I can quote you a part from Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" which discusses how science advances by showing a previous theory to be wrong (even if still useful in most circumstances). He is quite specific about this, he says that philosophically the old theory was completely wrong.

(For example if the predictions of the ekpyrotic universe hypothesis were successfully tested it might contradict aspects of relativity - which is a pillar of science at the moment. Most scientists don't think it will be successfully tested, but it cannot be ruled out a priori.)

[Robin]

What is there to not accept? If someone sets up a test and it gets a negative result then it was a test that got a negative result. I have no problems with that.
So you would accept that the hypothesis had failed?

[UndercoverElephant]

So you would accept that the hypothesis had failed?

Depends on the exact hypothesis and the details of the test...

[Robin]

Depends on the exact hypothesis and the details of the test...
But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?

[UndercoverElephant]

But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?

Lots of them have already failed upon testing.

[Robin]

Lots of them have already failed upon testing.
So the fact that some effect might be shy of skepticism does not imply that it is outside of the purview of science.

[UndercoverElephant]

So the fact that some effect might be shy of skepticism does not imply that it is outside of the purview of science.

I'm not following you...

[Robin]

As for unreliable effects - at 75 years of age my great aunt used to refuse offers of cups of tea, saying "my doctor has rationed my liquid intake and I want to make sure the entire ration is booze."

She died a month shy of her 100th birthday, nevertheless I think that medical science would be right in recommending against this practice.

In fact medical science deals with unreliable effects all the time - sometimes it gets it wrong, but often it gets it right.

Also, what is pain but a subjectively justified phenomenon?

So science deals with unreliable, subjectively justified phenomena all the time.

[Robin]

I'm not following you...
You have just agreed that hypotheses about paranormal phenomena involving the "sheep-goat" effect have failed on testing, yes?

The sheep-goat effect being those phenomena that do not occur in the presence of skeptics.

So phenomena that do not occur in the presence of skeptics can be scientifically tested.

And anything that can be scientifically tested is within the purview of science.

Therefore the mere fact that a hypothesis involves the "sheep-goat" effect does not put it outside the purview of science.

What part don't you follow?

[Robin]

Not if you analyse what the words actually mean. The answers only make sense if you don't ask any difficult questions about them. Start probing around a bit and you'll see they are silly.
Actually you are the only one who complains about difficult questions and probing.

Materialist thrive on difficult questions and probing.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This process has been carried out in reality.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles...tereffect.html
Please don't cite Victor Zammit. He is an idiot.

Note that the poster child for the experimenter effect, the Wiseman/Schlitz experiments, pooped out in the third study, where neither experimenter got positive results. It was fun while it lasted.

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

Please don't cite Victor Zammit. He is an idiot.

Note that the poster child for the experimenter effect, the Wiseman/Schlitz experiments, pooped out in the third study, where neither experimenter got positive results. It was fun while it lasted.

~~ Paul

The results of the experiment aren't relevant. I am making a point about epistemology, not scientific tests. I'm not interested in whether "remote staring" ESP is real or not. I'm interested in the nature of the dispute between Schlitz and Wiseman.

[UndercoverElephant]

You have just agreed that hypotheses about paranormal phenomena involving the "sheep-goat" effect have failed on testing, yes?

The sheep-goat effect being those phenomena that do not occur in the presence of skeptics.

So phenomena that do not occur in the presence of skeptics can be scientifically tested.

And anything that can be scientifically tested is within the purview of science.

Therefore the mere fact that a hypothesis involves the "sheep-goat" effect does not put it outside the purview of science.

What part don't you follow?

All of it. :(

[Robin]

The results of the experiment aren't relevant. I am making a point about epistemology, not scientific tests. I'm not interested in whether "remote staring" ESP is real or not. I'm interested in the nature of the dispute between Schlitz and Wiseman.
I am not sure there was a dispute - they both agreed on the protocol.

[Robin]

All of it. :(
OK, let's take it step by step:
You have just agreed that hypotheses about paranormal phenomena involving the "sheep-goat" effect have failed on testing, yes?
Are you saying you don't understand what I am asking here, or do you agree that you agreed with this?

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, let's take it step by step:

Are you saying you don't understand what I am asking here, or do you agree that you agreed with this?

I don't know what you are asking.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So many posts since I last checked in.:(

If the believers could produce a result all on their own under controlled conditions, the result would be accepted. They have not done so.

[Robin]

I don't know what you are asking.
OK, let's go back a few steps.
Nope. Have the phenomenon tested by a believer a statistically significant number of times.
Ah right...so you exclude all the skeptics from the process, the believers come up with a positive result and we expect the skeptics to accept it?
Yeah, right...
Believers like John Polkinghorne and Frances Collins - I would accept their word about the outcome of a scientific experiment.
You might. James Randi would not.
And similarly his counterparts on the other side - like you - would not accept the result if a string of believers tested the result and came up with nothing.

But that does not change the fact that even phenomena that somehow detect skepticism and run away can still be tested.

And you may not believe it, but science is not about convincing James Randi.
What is there to not accept? If someone sets up a test and it gets a negative result then it was a test that got a negative result. I have no problems with that.
So you would accept that the hypothesis had failed?
Depends on the exact hypothesis and the details of the test...
But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?
Lots of them have already failed upon testing.
This last bolded answer was in direct answer to the quote above.

Now here, you appear to be agreeing that paranormal hypotheses involving the "sheep-goat" effect have failed upon testing. I can't imagine what else you are saying.

Yet, when I ask the same question, with almost the same phrasing a few posts down - you don't know what I am talking about. I think I have the right to feel you are being a trifle evasive about this.

Would you like to change or clarifiy the answer above that I bolded?

[tsig]

He accused himself of an appeal to authority. It had nothing to do with me...

He was making a joke.

[tsig]

Ah, now this is what we are talking about. The way this looks is that you want to make absolutist claims about the reality of some vaguely specified phenomenon, and you want to set up a NOMA that protects you from people asking for evidence.

.

From my reading of his arguments he wants to be a debater, set the rules of the debate, define the terms of the debate and then judge the winner.

[tsig]

Materialist thrive on difficult questions and probing.

The UFO thread is thataway---------->

[Robin]

In general, the criteria for something to be classed as a paranormal, religious or mystic phenomenon under this NOMA are:

1. It involves supposed alterations to quantum indeterminacy
2. It is unreliable and unrepeatable
3. It depends completely upon subjective judgements
4. It vanishes in the presence of skepticism.

Is that a fair summary so far?

[Robin]

The UFO thread is thataway---------->
:)

I walked right into that one.

[zooterkin]

Indeed, I really can't be bothered to go there anyway. In this thread I am deliberately defend a very vague notion of mysticism and paranormalism: that human actions or things unspecified can influence quantum indeterminism in scientifically-undetectable ways. It makes little difference at this point whether you want to call this "free will", "witchcraft", "ESP" or anything else. Call it what you like. This is what is relevant:

(a) it's real
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

[Darat]

Indeed, I really can't be bothered to go there anyway. In this thread I am deliberately defend a very vague notion of mysticism and paranormalism: that human actions or things unspecified can influence quantum indeterminism in scientifically-undetectable ways. It makes little difference at this point whether you want to call this "free will", "witchcraft", "ESP" or anything else. Call it what you like. This is what is relevant:

(a) it's real
(b) science can't reliably investigate it
(c) it's weird enough that most of the people on this board naturally want to reject it
(d) it is related to religious beliefs.

Now I freely admit I will struggle to follow the maths but I know a lot of folk here will understand the maths (and be willing to help those like me that will struggle to follow it) so I look forward to seeing your mathematics.

[Darat]

He accused himself of an appeal to authority. It had nothing to do with me...

Well yes I did, because I do tend to consider myself an authority on what I have said....

[Darat]

...snip...

I can quote you a part from Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" which discusses how science advances by showing a previous theory to be wrong (even if still useful in most circumstances). He is quite specific about this, he says that philosophically the old theory was completely wrong.

...snip...

I've argued this point for the likes of "quantum mechanics" in the past; I would hold we know such theories to be wrong in a very fundamental sense, even though they can be very accurate and very useful, in certain circumstances at modeling the world around us, simply because we know they do not describe the world as we do observe it.

[PixyMisa]

Indeed, I really can't be bothered to go there anyway. In this thread I am deliberately defend a very vague notion of mysticism and paranormalism: that human actions or things unspecified can influence quantum indeterminism in scientifically-undetectable ways.
That's the problem right there. You just defined your vague notion out of existence altogether.

If it has an effect on the natural world, science can distinguish between that effect and the lack of that effect.

If science can't distinguish between the effect and the lack of the effect, neither can you. If you can, then science can - we can, after all, use you as our detector.

A scientifically undetectable influence is the same as no influence. Thus, by your own definition, you don't believe in mysticism or the paranormal at all.

[rocketdodger]

If science can't distinguish between the effect and the lack of the effect, neither can you. If you can, then science can - we can, after all, use you as our detector.


Yeah this seems to be the major point that woo proponents are utterly incapable of comprehending.

[Robin]

Deleted for irrelevant frivolity

[blobru]

Deleted for irrelevant frivolity

Aww, come on! Now we're all curious. :mad:

(although it's hard to say just what magisterium irrelevant frivolity belongs to; maybe it's for the best...)

[zooterkin]

Talking of frivolity, where does the A come from in NOMA?

[blobru]

Amalgamated.

[westprog]

Science can help inform us of the costs and benefits. Which amounts to the same thing, if we choose to consider that in our decision making.

We don't need science to do this, perhaps. But, the option is there, if anyone wants it.


It's not remotely the same thing. Any evaluation of an ethical quandary will involve an estimation of costs and benefits. Science is just a more precise way to perform the estimation, but assigning value to each individual cost and benefit cannot be done by science.


How much value we place on human life follows from evolutionary theory; replication theories in particular.

We don't necessarily need science to tell us how to value humans. It happens automatically. But, science can show us why, with details that become more precise over time.


It's quite possible to have a detailed scientific analysis of how people do ethics. That analysis is not ethics.


ETA: Just to be clear: My argument is NOT that science must stick its nose in these things. My argument is that there is nothing that can stop it from doing so, if someone is going to do so. NOMA certainly can't stop it. NOMA has nothing productive to add to the manner. THAT is my point.

It's science that stops it. Trying to do ethics with science is bad science. NOMA is not a set of rules to keep scientists in check. Good scientists already know the limits of science, and know that if they step beyond them, they are doing bad science.

[Robin]

Aww, come on! Now we're all curious. :mad:

(although it's hard to say just what magisterium irrelevant frivolity belongs to; maybe it's for the best...)
I was just comparing paranormal phenomena with that singing frog in the old Warner Bros cartoon - you know the one that sings and dances when it is alone with it's owner, but when he tries to show it to others - it just sits there and croaks.

[westprog]

Er, what?

I've noticed that among the JREF atheists there's a strong tendency to regard the Man-on-a-cloud, holy-book-fundamentalist type of religion as the only valid form. People who don't subscribe to this view (and that includes, I think, every religious person I've ever met) are regarded as living in some kind of halfway house, uncommitted, and in a way cheating by not having the required list of stupid, bigoted views.

Look at the never-ending supply of "Explain this, Christian dolts" threads.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not sure there was a dispute - they both agreed on the protocol.

That didn't stop there being a dispute. Theirs was the archetypal example of borderline results being interpreted differently by skeptics and believers. I don't care who anyone thinks was right - all I am interested in is the different ways they interpreted the same set of results. Schlitz was prepared to bend the normal rules of science, Wiseman wasn't.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, let's go back a few steps.

This last bolded answer was in direct answer to the quote above.

Now here, you appear to be agreeing that paranormal hypotheses involving the "sheep-goat" effect have failed upon testing. I can't imagine what else you are saying.

Yet, when I ask the same question, with almost the same phrasing a few posts down - you don't know what I am talking about. I think I have the right to feel you are being a trifle evasive about this.

Would you like to change or clarifiy the answer above that I bolded?

I have no idea what the "sheep-goat" effect is supposed be, Robin.

[westprog]

Utter Idiot award to anyone who would trust the god-botherers to keep their side of the bargain.

It's not a demarcation agreement. It's mostly a guide to what is good science. When science strays outside its own proper boundaries, it stops being science and starts being nonsense.

[UndercoverElephant]

In general, the criteria for something to be classed as a paranormal, religious or mystic phenomenon under this NOMA are:

1. It involves supposed alterations to quantum indeterminacy
2. It is unreliable and unrepeatable
3. It depends completely upon subjective judgements
4. It vanishes in the presence of skepticism.

Is that a fair summary so far?

No. (3) only, as defined in the opening post. (1,2 and 4) are part of an argument designed to demonstrate that a specific claim made by Dawkins about "existence claims" and science is incorrect.

[Robin]

I've noticed that among the JREF atheists there's a strong tendency to regard the Man-on-a-cloud, holy-book-fundamentalist type of religion as the only valid form. People who don't subscribe to this view (and that includes, I think, every religious person I've ever met) are regarded as living in some kind of halfway house, uncommitted, and in a way cheating by not having the required list of stupid, bigoted views.

Look at the never-ending supply of "Explain this, Christian dolts" threads.
But as we have established, Darat was clearly not talking about man-on-a-cloud holy book fundamentalist types.

He was talking about any religion that did not conform to the type of religion being described in his NOMA.

That is not just man-on-a-cloud fundamentalists.

[UndercoverElephant]

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

No. What is the point in talking about phenomena which aren't real? NB: we are talking about whether or not they are actually real, not whether or not whether science already acknowledges them to be real.

[UndercoverElephant]

Now I freely admit I will struggle to follow the maths but I know a lot of folk here will understand the maths (and be willing to help those like me that will struggle to follow it) so I look forward to seeing your mathematics.

It has nothing to do with mathematics. You only need to understand the maths if you want to calculate the actual probabilities of various things happening. You do not need it to understand how and why QM is fundamentally probabilistic.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well yes I did, because I do tend to consider myself an authority on what I have said....

That's not an appeal to authority. It's just asserting you are correct because "I know what I'm talking about." This is considerably worse than an appeal to authority.

[westprog]

But as we have established, Darat was clearly not talking about man-on-a-cloud holy book fundamentalist types.

He was talking about any religion that did not conform to the type of religion being described in his NOMA.

That is not just man-on-a-cloud fundamentalists.

I didn't mention Darat. I referred to a substantial group of JREF atheists and their comfort zone when dealing with religion.

[Darat]

It has nothing to do with mathematics. You only need to understand the maths if you want to calculate the actual probabilities of various things happening. You do not need it to understand how and why QM is fundamentally probabilistic.

Actually you do since QM is simply (in one sense only) a mathematical model of certain aspects of reality.

[Darat]

That's not an appeal to authority. It's just asserting you are correct because "I know what I'm talking about." This is considerably worse than an appeal to authority.

Oh dear - I really don't know how wronger you could be! :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh dear - I really don't know how wronger you could be! :)

I rather suspect you'd say that if I claimed squares have four sides, Darat...

[blobru]

I was just comparing paranormal phenomena with that singing frog in the old Warner Bros cartoon - you know the one that sings and dances when it is alone with it's owner, but when he tries to show it to others - it just sits there and croaks.


One Froggy Evening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uZbq8z9vOk) (classic of the cartoon magisterium -- here with hebrew[?] scripture -- talk about your overlap!): :frogsat:

2uZbq8z9vOk

[Wowbagger]

but assigning value to each individual cost and benefit cannot be done by science. Why not?

What would prevent some clever scientists from developing a model that can effectively calculate the values of various things? It sounds cold, perhaps. But, if it proves to be highly effective, it would only get adopted more often, over time, (with modifications every now and then).

Perhaps you think science should not do such things. But, that is different from cannot. And, if we do end up going that route, your statements will seem rather quaint.

It's quite possible to have a detailed scientific analysis of how people do ethics. That analysis is not ethics. I agree that an analysis of ethics is not, by itself, "doing ethics".

Analysis of ethics is just one component in the chain that could lead science to have more impact on ethical policies.

Science is a discipline for acquiring new knowledge. So, by definition, it cannot directly "do ethics". My point is that it can inform us of the best approaches to doing ethics, and explain why we value what we do, etc. And, for all practical intents and purposes... that amounts to the same thing, in the end.


Trying to do ethics with science is bad science.
But, can the information and advice provided by science be better ethics?

(And, to stay on topic: If we stuck with NOMA, we would never find out.)

[westprog]

Why not?

What would prevent some clever scientists from developing a model that can effectively calculate the values of various things? It sounds cold, perhaps. But, if it proves to be highly effective, it would only get adopted more often, over time, (with modifications every now and then).


It can't do it because science is inherently value free. There's nothing to stop us setting up models which analyse situations, and use science and maths to calculate what would be the best or worst result. But we always have to assign values before we start. Science will never give us the initial values.


Perhaps you think science should not do such things. But, that is different from cannot. And, if we do end up going that route, your statements will seem rather quaint.

I agree that an analysis of ethics is not, by itself, "doing ethics".

Analysis of ethics is just one component in the chain that could lead science to have more impact on ethical policies.

Science is a discipline for acquiring new knowledge. So, by definition, it cannot directly "do ethics". My point is that it can inform us of the best approaches to doing ethics, and explain why we value what we do, etc. And, for all practical intents and purposes... that amounts to the same thing, in the end.


No, because the science never provides the valuation of the course of action. Give different initial values to different outcomes or behaviour, and science will tell you anything - invade Russia, donate a kidney, stay at home all day - depending on how you set up the system.


But, can the information and advice provided by science be better ethics?

(And, to stay on topic: If we stuck with NOMA, we would never find out.)

The only way that science can "do" ethics is if there is an objective moral standard for the universe, and it is detectable by objective scientific means. I don't know anybody who believes this to be true.

[Wowbagger]

But we always have to assign values before we start. Science will never give us the initial values. Assuming this is true, it makes little difference. All this means is that humans have to "prime the pump", before science can take over.

(Remeber: I am not saying it should take over. Only that it could take over.)

That is not an argument that science should not address ethical issues.

The only way that science can "do" ethics is if there is an objective moral standard for the universe, and it is detectable by objective scientific means. I don't know anybody who believes this to be true.What we know, so far, is that there is NOT one source for objective moral standards, in the Universe. Moral standards emerge, develop, and transform, over time, to meet the needs and interests of a society at any particular point in time.

We also know, so far, that these trends in ethics follow from modern evolutionary theories regarding "selfish" genes, and how they can develop expanding circles of altruism; and applications of game theory, etc.

We can, in fact, detect by objective scientific means, how ethics standards arise and evolve; even if there is no "ultimate source" (such as a "god" or whatever) from which they must come from.

Is that close enough?

[drkitten]

Assuming this is true, it makes little difference. All this means is that humans have to "prime the pump", before science can take over.

But that's exactly the NOMA argument.


That is not an argument that science should not address ethical issues.

Actually, it is. Science can only "take over" once the ethical issues have been resolved.

For, example, science can calculate the cost/benefit ratio for a proposed course of action, but it can neither assign values to the costs nor to the benefits. It can only do the accounting to make sure the sums are properly determined.



What we know, so far, is that there is NOT one source for objective moral standards, in the Universe. Moral standards emerge, develop, and transform, over time, to meet the needs and interests of a society at any particular point in time.

We don't know that. You can see that that particular point doesn't follow by substituting "life" for "objective moral standards"; the idea that life evolves and changes is not incompatible with a single abiogenetic event. Similarly, the number of different (evolved and changed) versions of "A Christmas Carol" out there don't disprove the idea that there was one single source from which the others diverged. And a literary purist could in fact argue that all other versions than the original manuscript are not only different, but "corrupt" and "lesser" and "wrong"....


Is that close enough?

It really does come down to Hume's is/ought distinction. Science is great (indeed, unmatched) at telling us how the world is, including telling us how it came to be. It cannot tell us how it ought to be unless you have already primed the pump by essentially pre-making your ethical and moral decisions.



Not even close, I'm afraid.

[UndercoverElephant]

But that's exactly the NOMA argument.



Actually, it is. Science can only "take over" once the ethical issues have been resolved.

For, example, science can calculate the cost/benefit ratio for a proposed course of action, but it can neither assign values to the costs nor to the benefits. It can only do the accounting to make sure the sums are properly determined.




We don't know that. You can see that that particular point doesn't follow by substituting "life" for "objective moral standards"; the idea that life evolves and changes is not incompatible with a single abiogenetic event. Similarly, the number of different (evolved and changed) versions of "A Christmas Carol" out there don't disprove the idea that there was one single source from which the others diverged. And a literary purist could in fact argue that all other versions than the original manuscript are not only different, but "corrupt" and "lesser" and "wrong"....



It really does come down to Hume's is/ought distinction. Science is great (indeed, unmatched) at telling us how the world is, including telling us how it came to be. It cannot tell us how it ought to be unless you have already primed the pump by essentially pre-making your ethical and moral decisions.



Not even close, I'm afraid.

It's not often I agree with every word of one of DrKitten's posts, but in this case I do.

[Wowbagger]

But that's exactly the NOMA argument.
If that's the case, it's a silly thing to debate over. Science doesn't pop out of nowhere. Humans conduct it. So, that implies humans have to start the process off.
But, humans also do ethics, so there will not be any naturally enforced barrier between them.

When I hear someone arguing that ethics should be off-limits to science, I assume they not talking merely talking about the initial "priming". I think about the bulk of the process.

But, that is assuming we even need to prime it. What happens when we can derive even the initial values for ethics decisions, independently of any human judgments?

What happens when we can derive initial human values from first principles of biology, the same way we can derive Maxwell's equations from first principles in physics? (The likelihood of this is not the issue. The merest possibility that it could happen, in theory, is.)

We don't know that. Perhaps a minor correction is in order, here:

What we know, so far, is that there DOES NOT NEED TO BE one source for objective moral standards, in the Universe.

I will grant you that there could be one source, or multiple sources that merge and/or branch, etc. This does not change the two, more important, points: Ethics change over time, to meet needs and interests; and science could trace how and why it does.

It really does come down to Hume's is/ought distinction. I agree that, strictly speaking, science cannot give us an "ought". But, that does not mean it cannot be done in a virtual manner:

If humans use the findings of science to inform them of ethical policy, my point is that it virtually boils down to the same thing. It is almost "as if" science is providing an "ought", when in reality, it is humans turning a bunch of "ises*" into "oughts".

(* What's the plural of "is" when used as a noun form?)

When I hear someone arguing that science should not "do ethics", I imagine that they are probably against the "virtualization of 'is' into 'ought' ".

When I think of NOMA, I think of folks who lack the imagination to see just how much input science can place into ethical decisions.



ETA: For legal reasons, I must reiterate: I am not necessarily for the virtualization of 'is' into 'ought', myself. My argument is that no one has the right to claim that it should never be done. What happens when such conversions prove to be highly effective?

[Philosaur]

It's not often I agree with every word of one of DrKitten's posts, but in this case I do.

This still doesn't seem to get you anywhere closer to justifying ANY ethical system. Science can't assign the values and costs--so who or what gets to do so?

It's the same problem that the rest of the "religion" magisterium suffers from: what becomes the arbiter of truth, the decider of definitions, the giver of law, for the meager matters left to that magisterium?

After all, you've said that quantum indeterminacy leaves room for free will. But it also leaves room for a cosmic puppet-master, or a universal random number generator, or even a totally lawful and impersonal force of nature that simply cannot yet be detected scientifically.

[drkitten]

If that's the case, it's a silly thing to debate over.

Shrug. So stop debating. I'm not the one claiming that science can have all the answers.

Science doesn't pop out of nowhere. Humans conduct it. So, that implies humans have to start the process off.

But, humans also do ethics, so there will not be any naturally enforced barrier between them.

The barriers aren't "enforced," they're simply recognized. Smart scientists recognize that, for example, they can't determine whether a proposed course of action is "better" or "worse" except with respect to any particular evaluation. And that choosing between different evaluation scheme is even harder, because this ends up in a circular problem.

Really, it comes down to questions of logical inference. To do logical inference, you need to carry out three steps.

* Select a logical framework
* Select a starting set of axioms and axiom schema
* Infer, by following the rules given to you by the framework.

The framework will not give you the axioms.


When I hear someone arguing that ethics should be off-limits to science, I assume they not talking merely talking about the initial "priming". I think about the bulk of the process.

But, that is assuming we even need to prime it. What happens when we can derive even the initial values for ethics decisions, independently of any human judgments?

We cannot do that. We cannot infer our own axioms.


What happens when we can derive initial human values from first principles of biology, the same way we can derive Maxwell's equations from first principles in physics?

We can't, even in theory. This is a classic fallacy, called "argumetum ad naturem." The idea that because something is biologically derived, it is therefore good is well-known to be wrong. Humans improve on nature all the time (I say, reading through a pair of spectacles as I type).

Maxwell's equations tell us how the world is. It can even tell us how the world could be (in terms of setting limitations on the possible). It cannot tell us which of the possible worlds are better without reference to an external standard of "good" which science cannot provide.


I agree that, strictly speaking, science cannot give us an "ought".

And that is the NOMA argument in a nutshell.



If humans use the findings of science to inform them of ethical policy, my point is that it virtually boils down to the same thing. It is almost "as if" science is providing an "ought", when in reality, it is humans turning a bunch of "ises*" into "oughts".

No.

What it's doing is giving us the most efficient and effective way of finding out the path to the "ought" we have already chosen.

[drkitten]

This still doesn't seem to get you anywhere closer to justifying ANY ethical system. Science can't assign the values and costs--so who or what gets to do so?

Your bootstraps.

Pick your axioms and work with them.

[Philosaur]

To expand upon my previous post, what I want to ask is: What can you *do* with the religion magisterium?

You can't deduce any truth from it, since using it amounts to a "freebie" premise that you never have to pay off (unlike a reductio argument), or else it amounts to a novel logical move that nobody else is likely to accept (i.e. A becomes ~A via the "Leap of Faith" rule).

You can't use it inductively since it's not amenable to statistical analysis (or else science could indeed talk about it).

So what do you *do* with it?

[Philosaur]

Your bootstraps.

Pick your axioms and work with them.

And then sharpen your rhetorical skills to convince others to accept them.

[drkitten]

To expand upon my previous post, what I want to ask is: What can you *do* with the religion magisterium?

Nothing or everything, depending upon your axioms.


You can't deduce any truth from it, since using it amounts to a "freebie" premise that you never have to pay off (unlike a reductio argument), or else it amounts to a novel logical move that nobody else is likely to accept (i.e. A becomes ~A via the "Leap of Faith" rule).

Well,.... you can't deduce any descriptive truth about the visible world from it, certainly. That's almost the definition of NOMA right there; science deals with descriptive truths about the visible world.

You can deduce normative statements from the religious magisterium. Things like "thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" are normative statements; there's no way to establish (empirically) whether or not that's true or false, because it doesn't actually say what will happen if you do. It just tells you not to. [The "is/ought" distinction again.]

Or, alternatively, you can deduce descriptive statements about the invisible world -- e.g., "you will go to Hell if you seethe a kid in its mother's milk." But again there's no way to establish the truth of such a statement unless you've got a (scientifically impossible) afterlife-detector.

And someone who doesn't accept your particular version of the magisteria may not accept those statements as true.


So what do you *do* with it?

Just because you can't prove a statement as true doesn't make it untrue -- or even meaningless. In less than a hundred years, I suspect you'll find out first hand whether or not eating a cheeseburger will damn you to Hell. I know I'll find that out empirically (I'm a cheeseburger fanatic), but I'm probably not going to be able to write up my findings in a way that you and the editorial board of Nature find compelling.

If you find the axioms of the religious magisteria compelling -- more likely, you find some of the axioms of some version of a religious magisteria compelling -- what you will do with it is follow it. If it happens to be correct, you'll have successfully mastered Pascal's wager and you can waggle your finger at me triumphantly as I'm burning in my cheeseburger-derived Hell.

[drkitten]

And then sharpen your rhetorical skills to convince others to accept them.

Why? The idea that others need accept my moral axioms is itself a moral axiom, one I don't necessarily accept. In Christianity, that idea is called "the Great Commission" -- "Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

If you're a Zorastrian -- or for that matter, a Jew -- the idea of "making disciples of all nations" is silly.

[PixyMisa]

I've noticed that among the JREF atheists there's a strong tendency to regard the Man-on-a-cloud, holy-book-fundamentalist type of religion as the only valid form.
No you haven't.

[westprog]

It's not often I agree with every word of one of DrKitten's posts, but in this case I do.

Who is he and what has he done with DrKitten? Excellent post.

[westprog]

To expand upon my previous post, what I want to ask is: What can you *do* with the religion magisterium?

You can't deduce any truth from it, since using it amounts to a "freebie" premise that you never have to pay off (unlike a reductio argument), or else it amounts to a novel logical move that nobody else is likely to accept (i.e. A becomes ~A via the "Leap of Faith" rule).

You can't use it inductively since it's not amenable to statistical analysis (or else science could indeed talk about it).

So what do you *do* with it?

You decide how to live your life. And you cannot avoid making that choice any more than you can decide not to obey the laws of physics.

[Wowbagger]

We cannot do that. We cannot infer our own axioms.
I do not think the model of frameworks and axioms is a good way to think about this.

Our "oughts" don't just pop out of nowhere.

If we accept that ethics evolved in biological entities, which evolved (ultimately) from natural, physical processes; then what law of physics makes it impossible, even in principle, for us to eventually discover how we derive our ethics from those natural, physical processes?

This is a classic fallacy, called "argumetum ad naturem." The idea that because something is biologically derived, it is therefore good is well-known to be wrong. This is not the argument I am making. I am NOT suggesting that it is either a good thing nor a bad thing (nor a right thing nor a wrong thing) to derive our ethical values from what science discovers about nature. (Nor that those discoveries, themselves, are inherently "right" nor "wrong", etc.)

My argument is that no one has the right to say that science should not try to discover such things, if some future scientists think they are clever enough to figure out a way to do that.

The way I see NOMA: Its ideals would probably have everyone try to prevent such things, for no reason other than arbitrary jurisdiction enforcement.


And that is the NOMA argument in a nutshell. Perhaps it depends on which "NOMA" we are talking about.

The one I am familiar with implies that ethics is completely out of the realm of scientific inquiry. Not just in a strict sense.

What it's doing is giving us the most efficient and effective way of finding out the path to the "ought" we have already chosen.If NOMA had its way, I suspect we would lack those efficient and effective paths.

[drkitten]

I do not think the model of frameworks and axioms is a good way to think about this.

You're entitled to think that. You're also entitled to be wrong. :D


Our "oughts" don't just pop out of nowhere.

Of course not. Most people are taught them by their parents or their society.


If we accept that ethics evolved in biological entities, which evolved (ultimately) from natural, physical processes; then what law of physics makes it impossible, even in principle, for us to eventually discover how we derive our ethics from those natural, physical processes?

The fact that science can only discover what "is," not what "ought to be."

Or to put it another way, the failure of science to bridge the fallacy of "appeal to nature." Simply because something derives from a natural process does not mean that it's the way things ought to be.




My argument is that no one has the right to say that science should not try to discover such things,

No one has the right to say that scientists should not try to discover a way to duplicate the cube or trisect the angle with ruler and compass, either.

We do, however, say that if they try to do it, they will fail. And that a clever scientist would not waste time on a task that provably cannot succeed.



The way I see NOMA: Its ideals would probably have everyone try to prevent such things, for no reason other than arbitrary jurisdiction enforcement.

This is simply wrong. What prevents the task is its fundamental impossibility. At least in my version of ethics, I try to prevent people from even attempting fundamentally impossible tasks, because they're wasted effort.

But that's hardly "arbitrary jurisdiction enforcement." If you come to me with a thesis proposal that involves a provable impossibility, should I accept the proposal and allow you to work for six years on a task I know you will fail at?


If NOMA had its way, I suspect we would lack those efficient and effective paths.

And you'd be entirely wrong.

Bear in mind that the term "NOMA" was originated by a scientist (Gould) to point out that science was not in opposition to religion. But the idea itself is much older; Galileo pointed out in the 17th century that "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," but he himself was merely quoting a church prelate (Cardinal Baronius) of the 16th century. The idea of NOMA predates most of the scientific revolution and was used precisely to justify the lack of authority of the Church to dictate to the findings of "natural philosophers."

Just as you can't get from an "is" to an "ought," nor can you get from an "ought" to an "is"; the idea that the Bible is a source of factual information about the natural world was specifically rejected by the very church fathers who first proposed NOMA. It is precisely because the magisteria of religion does not overlap with that of science that empiricism was seen as necessary -- because reasoning from theologically-derived first principles had been observed not to work.

[Robin]

No. (3) only, as defined in the opening post. (1,2 and 4) are part of an argument designed to demonstrate that a specific claim made by Dawkins about "existence claims" and science is incorrect.
You also stipulate quantum indeterminacy in your opening post.

[Wowbagger]

The fact that science can only discover what "is," not what "ought to be."Sounds oddly like we are stepping into some sort of semantics argument.

Name the laws of physics that shows us why it would be impossible for science to ever discover where our "oughts" ultimately come from.

I already agree that, strictly speaking, science does not give us "oughts", because by its very definition, it deals with acquiring knowledge that "is".

But, that is NOT an argument that science would never be able to discover a way for it to derive oughts from first principles.

[Robin]

First:

But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?
Lots of them have already failed upon testing.

Then:
I have no idea what the "sheep-goat" effect is supposed be, Robin
So why did you answer in the first place if you had no idea what the question meant?

Why didn't you simply ask in the first place? Or didn't you read the question.

The whole discussion was about paranormal phenomena that did not occur in the presence of skeptics and I have already explained:

The sheep-goat effect being those phenomena that do not occur in the presence of skeptics

As I say, I think I have a right here to conclude you are being evasive.

[UndercoverElephant]

First:


Then:

So why did you answer in the first place if you had no idea what the question meant?

Why didn't you simply as in the first place? Or didn't you read the question.

The whole discussion was about paranormal phenomena that did not occur in the presence of skeptics and I have already explained:



As I say, I think I have a right here to conclude you are being evasive.

I'm not being evasive. I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to ask me.

[UndercoverElephant]

This still doesn't seem to get you anywhere closer to justifying ANY ethical system.


I never set out to justify any ethical system.


Science can't assign the values and costs--so who or what gets to do so?


Individual human beings.


It's the same problem that the rest of the "religion" magisterium suffers from: what becomes the arbiter of truth, the decider of definitions, the giver of law, for the meager matters left to that magisterium?


Conscience.


After all, you've said that quantum indeterminacy leaves room for free will. But it also leaves room for a cosmic puppet-master, or a universal random number generator, or even a totally lawful and impersonal force of nature that simply cannot yet be detected scientifically.

If there's a cosmic puppet-master then I'm not impressed with the show so far.

There has to be further debate if we are to establish some rules about how ethics is conducted.

[Robin]

I'm not being evasive. I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to ask me.
*sigh* let me repeat:

But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?
Lots of them have already failed upon testing.

Then later:
I have no idea what the "sheep-goat" effect is supposed be, Robin
So why did you answer in the first place if you had no idea what the question meant?

Why didn't you simply ask in the first place? Or didn't you read the question?
So if you are genuine and not being evasive why didn't you answer any of these three questions?

Can you answer them now?

Do you still not know what the "sheep-goat" effect is, even though I have now posted the explanation of it twice.

Even though simply Googling "sheep-goat effect" would give you a long list of explanations?

[drkitten]

Name the laws of physics that shows us why it would be impossible for science to ever discover where our "oughts" ultimately come from.

I already agree that, strictly speaking, science does not give us "oughts", because by its very definition, it deals with acquiring knowledge that "is".

And that is the "law of physics" that you are looking for. It's not a law of physics, strictly speaking. It's a law of logic or of mathematics.

You can't tell where an "ought" comes from until you have a particular "ought" in mind to investigate the origin of. And since there is no way for science to enumerate all possible "oughts," science can only investigate the "oughts" that it is presented with.

But beyond that, you're still falling into the fallacy of appeal to nature -- and the broader genetic fallacy, as well. Knowing where a particular idea originated (which science can investigate) does not tell us whether that idea is "true."

In the case of a declarative idea, we already have lots of examples where we know the naturalistic origins of the beliefs, but we also know the beliefs themselves to be wrong (even if they are adaptive or derived from other correct beliefs). We have empirical evidence that the beliefs are wrong even though they are naturalistic. In the case of moral ideas, we cannot know empirically whether they are correct or not, but we have no reason to believe that our naturalistic ideas about "ought" are any more reliable than our naturalistic beliefs about "is."

And, in fact, we've got ample evidence suggesting that it is, in fact, moral to improve upon nature. As I pointed out, I'm wearing glasses as I write -- and I don't think it's wrong for me to improve upon the gifts of nature in terms of my visual acuity.



But, that is NOT an argument that science would never be able to discover a way for it to derive oughts from first principles.

"I already agree that, strictly speaking, science cannot do this. But that is not an argument that science can't do this." If you accept that science by definition cannot derive "oughts," then you also accept that science cannot discover a way to derive "oughts."

[UndercoverElephant]

To expand upon my previous post, what I want to ask is: What can you *do* with the religion magisterium?

You can't deduce any truth from it, since using it amounts to a "freebie" premise that you never have to pay off (unlike a reductio argument), or else it amounts to a novel logical move that nobody else is likely to accept (i.e. A becomes ~A via the "Leap of Faith" rule).

You can't use it inductively since it's not amenable to statistical analysis (or else science could indeed talk about it).

So what do you *do* with it?

A "leap of faith" would appear to be required if you are to "do" anything with it. However, I'm not sure that these leaps of faiths should be what drives ethics. That is why I started a thread about the morality of driving other species to extinction: I don't know how I would actually defend this ethical belief, I just strongly feel that it is true. My conscience is telling me that something is badly wrong about the whole situation. I can't prove to anyone why my views are right, but the subjective conviction is strong enough that I'd probably die in defence of it.

The magisterium of religion is a set of myth, metaphors and practices designed to make people think about, or to provide arguments in support of, various metaphysical and ethical propositions. The only thing that can "do" anything with it is what Gould calls "our distinct selves", what religious people call "souls" and what philosophers/metaphysicians might call "the I". By that I do not mean the cognitive mind but the subject itself - "us" - our intuition and our conscience.

[Philosaur]

Nothing or everything, depending upon your axioms.

Well,.... you can't deduce any descriptive truth about the visible world from it, certainly. That's almost the definition of NOMA right there; science deals with descriptive truths about the visible world.

Agreed.

You can deduce normative statements from the religious magisterium. Things like "thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" are normative statements; there's no way to establish (empirically) whether or not that's true or false, because it doesn't actually say what will happen if you do. It just tells you not to. [The "is/ought" distinction again.]


I think this is stretching the meaning of "deduce". Accepting a pronouncement from on high is nothing like deduction. Deduction serves as a way to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Regarding mysticism, how do you know which revelations to trust? Yes, that's rhetorical for "You have no justification for believing one revelation over another", and that begs the question of revelation, etc.


Or, alternatively, you can deduce descriptive statements about the invisible world -- e.g., "you will go to Hell if you seethe a kid in its mother's milk." But again there's no way to establish the truth of such a statement unless you've got a (scientifically impossible) afterlife-detector.


Again, not so much deduction, since, like a contradiction, anything follows from a belief in divine revelation.

(I should shun the "-tion"...)

And someone who doesn't accept your particular version of the magisteria may not accept those statements as true.

I suspect there are ~6 billion different versions of this magisterium.

Just because you can't prove a statement as true doesn't make it untrue -- or even meaningless. In less than a hundred years, I suspect you'll find out first hand whether or not eating a cheeseburger will damn you to Hell. I know I'll find that out empirically (I'm a cheeseburger fanatic), but I'm probably not going to be able to write up my findings in a way that you and the editorial board of Nature find compelling.

But hindsight's always 20/20. If prediction's your thing, then go for it! I just don't find much reason to worry about something I can't control, and about which I probably can't communicate to anyone else.

If you find the axioms of the religious magisteria compelling -- more likely, you find some of the axioms of some version of a religious magisteria compelling -- what you will do with it is follow it. If it happens to be correct, you'll have successfully mastered Pascal's wager and you can waggle your finger at me triumphantly as I'm burning in my cheeseburger-derived Hell.

Actually, I'll just have gambled correctly, because Pascal's wager tells us nothing about which of the mutually exclusive paths to salvation to follow.

Honestly, I'm just tired of hearing so many mystics--who each have their own personal hotline to God--claim that they have the "right" answer. Even worse is when these mystics start acting on whatever crazy message that's been revealed to them, like crashing planes into buildings or killing abortion doctors.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nothing or everything, depending upon your axioms.



Well,.... you can't deduce any descriptive truth about the visible world from it, certainly. That's almost the definition of NOMA right there; science deals with descriptive truths about the visible world.


I'd say "observable" to avoid any connection with the sense of vision, but this is splitting hairs.


You can deduce normative statements from the religious magisterium. Things like "thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" are normative statements; there's no way to establish (empirically) whether or not that's true or false, because it doesn't actually say what will happen if you do. It just tells you not to. [The "is/ought" distinction again.]

Or, alternatively, you can deduce descriptive statements about the invisible world -- e.g., "you will go to Hell if you seethe a kid in its mother's milk." But again there's no way to establish the truth of such a statement unless you've got a (scientifically impossible) afterlife-detector.


Agreed.


If you find the axioms of the religious magisteria compelling -- more likely, you find some of the axioms of some version of a religious magisteria compelling -- what you will do with it is follow it. If it happens to be correct, you'll have successfully mastered Pascal's wager and you can waggle your finger at me triumphantly as I'm burning in my cheeseburger-derived Hell.

I'd like to offer an alternative wager. Forget life after death: humanity is already in serious trouble in the here and now. If the magisterium of religion is claiming that humans, via free will or some other mechanism, can tip the quantum dice in some way that can help us, then what do we have to lose from believing it is true? We need all the help we can get.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12006&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

This was a thread I started on an environmentalist/peak-oil board, and an evangelical Christian turned up at the end of it.


UE: Do you think God can save humans from themselves?

Christian: Yes, for those who repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. God can certainly work on us to change our behaviour if we let Him.

UE: "work on us"? What's he gonna do? Alter the genetic makeup of the human race? Deprive us of Free Will? And why should he have to "work" on us anyway? Wasn't he supposed to have designed us in the first place? Surely if more work is needed, it's because he screwed it up the first time round, and that doesn't sit very comfortably with the idea of an omni-everything God.

Christian: Nothing to do with the genetic makeup- the solution is spiritual, and "the flesh"- that is our fallen natures- are still with us, and possibly that does mean the physical part of us. Rather by sticking with God and letting Him help us overcome the bad part of our nature.


Basically she was saying that human sin is God's responsibility. This is not the sort of "help" I am refering to.

[drkitten]

I think this is stretching the meaning of "deduce". Accepting a pronouncement from on high is nothing like deduction. Deduction serves as a way to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Regarding mysticism, how do you know which revelations to trust? Yes, that's rhetorical for "You have no justification for believing one revelation over another", and that begs the question of revelation, etc.

But it's also not something that you can avoid.

I mean, let's put a cheeseburger in front of you. You have two mutually exclusive choices -- you can eat it, or not. And you can't avoid making that choice, either. If you choose not to not eat the cheeseburger, that's just a pretentious phrasing for saying you're goint to eat it.

In broader terms, every time you are faced with a choice of an action, you are implicitly forced to decide whether that action is good, is bad, or is morally neutral. You can get up in the morning or not, as you see fit. But science will not provide you with a grounded basis for a choice. You can recognize that if you don't get up and go to work, you will be fired. But that only matters if you already know, for other reasons, that you don't want to be fired or that being fired is bad.

Science will tell you that if you don't get up, you'll get bedsores. It will even tell you that bedsores are painful. But it won't tell you to avoid pain; you need to make that call yourself.

Even if you decide that the reason to do anything at all is plainly and simply because you want to do it, you are still making an ethical choice to follow your wants. (That's a particular ethical system called "hedonism," and it's quite popular.) Science may tell you that you want something. It may even be able to tell you why you want something. But it won't tell you to follow your wants. That's beyond science's purview.

But you can't escape some form of non-scientific magisterium telling you what to do and what not to do. Because ultimately you will have to decide to do or not to do something, and that decision will be grounded outside of science.

[tsig]

A "leap of faith" would appear to be required if you are to "do" anything with it. However, I'm not sure that these leaps of faiths should be what drives ethics. That is why I started a thread about the morality of driving other species to extinction: I don't know how I would actually defend this ethical belief, I just strongly feel that it is true. My conscience is telling me that something is badly wrong about the whole situation. I can't prove to anyone why my views are right, but the subjective conviction is strong enough that I'd probably die in defence of it.

The magisterium of religion is a set of myth, metaphors and practices designed to make people think about, or to provide arguments in support of, various metaphysical and ethical propositions. The only thing that can "do" anything with it is what Gould calls "our distinct selves", what religious people call "souls" and what philosophers/metaphysicians might call "the I". By that I do not mean the cognitive mind but the subject itself - "us" - our intuition and our conscience.

When you put it that way I agree.

Science: the real world

Religion: whatever's left

[Philosaur]

I never set out to justify any ethical system.



Individual human beings.



Conscience.



If there's a cosmic puppet-master then I'm not impressed with the show so far.

There has to be further debate if we are to establish some rules about how ethics is conducted.

Well, heck. I agree with every one of these answers.

So...what was the purpose of delineating the NOMA again?

The only quibble I can even remember having is the one about how quantum indeterminacy plays into it. Even so, it seems at this point that you've essentially said, "it allows for *something* other than physics". Okay, sure. If this is just an exegesis of your opinion on the matter, then carry on!

[Robin]

I've noticed that among the JREF atheists there's a strong tendency to regard the Man-on-a-cloud, holy-book-fundamentalist type of religion as the only valid form. People who don't subscribe to this view (and that includes, I think, every religious person I've ever met) are regarded as living in some kind of halfway house, uncommitted, and in a way cheating by not having the required list of stupid, bigoted views.

Look at the never-ending supply of "Explain this, Christian dolts" threads.
I think you are wrong in any case. We frequently deal with the arguments put by people like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole etc. head on, we don't say "you are not really Theists".

[UndercoverElephant]

*sigh* let me repeat:

So if you are genuine and not being evasive why didn't you answer any of these three questions?

Can you answer them now?

Do you still not know what the "sheep-goat" effect is, even though I have now posted the explanation of it twice.

Even though simply Googling "sheep-goat effect" would give you a long list of explanations?

If you'd said that before it would have helped:

http://www.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm


This difference between believers and disbelievers, known as the "sheep-goat effect," has been confirmed by many other researchers. A meta-analysis by Lawrence (1992), covering 73 experiments by 37 different researchers, clearly confirms that subjects who believe in psi obtain, on the average, higher results than those who do not believe in it.

We all tend to select information which confirms our beliefs and avoid that which seems not to fit with them. Selective perception undoubtedly plays a role in our interpretation of apparently paranormal experiences. Skeptics are justified in stating that those who believe firmly in psi will tend to see its occurrence everywhere, even to the point of confusing their own interpretations with the actual events. On the other hand, disbelievers will also tend toward the complementary fallacy, always finding some so-called "rational" explanation for a psi experience, even when it happens to them. But the sheep-goat effect suggests that the differences run deeper than mere interpretation: one's attitudes toward psi affects the likelihood that such phenomena will occur in the first place. The more an individual harbors a reductionistic view of the world, the less chance such phenomena will emerge (let alone be witnessed by them); the more one is interested in interconnectedness, and open to psi experiences, the more likely the world will "respond" by creating such experiences.


What was it you wanted to know about the sheep-goat effect?

Seems like exactly what I called "the experimenter effect", or a close relative...

(I think I'd have called it the sheep-bulldog effect, myself)

[Robin]

I'd like to offer an alternative wager. Forget life after death: humanity is already in serious trouble in the here and now. If the magisterium of religion is claiming that humans, via free will or some other mechanism, can tip the quantum dice in some way that can help us, then what do we have to lose from believing it is true? We need all the help we can get.
What makes you think it wouldn't tip the quantum dice the other way?

[drkitten]

I'd like to offer an alternative wager. Forget life after death: humanity is already in serious trouble in the here and now. If the magisterium of religion is claiming that humans, via free will or some other mechanism, can tip the quantum dice in some way that can help us, then what do we have to lose from believing it is true? We need all the help we can get.

The same problem as the one with Pascal's wager. "Some other mechanism" includes lots of different and incompatible claims; belief in one particular way to "tip the quantum dice" inherently excludes belief in other, equally (im)plausible ways.

Which one do you pick?

But, of course, there's no way to avoid making such a choice. Because even if you choose to believe there is NO way to tip the quantum dice, that itself is a belief.....

[UndercoverElephant]

But you can't escape some form of non-scientific magisterium telling you what to do and what not to do. Because ultimately you will have to decide to do or not to do something, and that decision will be grounded outside of science.

Science is just one of many inputs into the reasoning process. It never tells you what to do.

[UndercoverElephant]

When you put it that way I agree.

Science: the real world

Religion: whatever's left

If only it was that simple.

What do you think "real" means?

[Robin]

If you'd said that before it would have helped:
Sorry, I assumed you knew what Google or a search engine was.

I also assumed the fact that you answered a question about the "sheep-goat effect" in the first place indicated that you knew what the term meant.

I had already specified what the term meant twice and it was the whole point of the discussion up to that point.

I am not sure how much more helpful I could have been.
What was it you wanted to know about the sheep-goat effect?
I have posted it several times now. The first time you posted it you answered that you agreed.

Then, when I clarified whether you really did agree or not, suddenly you didn't know what the question meant any more.

Never mind, I am patient. I will post the question again:

But in general, do you accept that a paranormal hypothesis, even one involving the "sheep-goat" effect could fail upon testing?
Lots of them have already failed upon testing.

So, for the umpteenth time - do you stand by your original answer to this question?

(and in case you had forgotten, here is the context of the debate) http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5547105#post5547105

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, heck. I agree with every one of these answers.

So...what was the purpose of delineating the NOMA again?

The only quibble I can even remember having is the one about how quantum indeterminacy plays into it. Even so, it seems at this point that you've essentially said, "it allows for *something* other than physics". Okay, sure. If this is just an exegesis of your opinion on the matter, then carry on!

I'm not even sure I want to defend NOMA, given the trouble I've had defending it here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=281961

I need to keep people like sofos and metacristi on board. Sofos is a philosopher, metacristi a quantum physicist, both sympathetic to my general worldview.

What I am really trying to do is fill in certain "missing bits" left over from Gould's arguments in Rocks of Ages. I think Gould was basically correct, but that his version of NOMA suffered from various problems, most significantly that it was not metaphysically neutral. I also think that Richard Dawkins, who was for a long time an adversary of Gould, makes the same metaphysical errors. Dawkins, for me, is a really useful "stake in the ground" for this discussion. I think that many of his philosophical arguments are rubbish, but his single-mindedness, honesty and ability to clearly express himself at least helps me to explain what is wrong with them, philosophically.

Whether at the end of this process I end up with a working NOMA or not is not what primarily concerns me. My goal is to improve the quality of the questions being asked by making clear the differences between things like ethics, metaphysics, science and religion.

[UndercoverElephant]

What makes you think it wouldn't tip the quantum dice the other way?

Interesting question. Not one I can answer without reference to personal experience which has no place in this discussion.

[Robin]

Interesting question. Not one I can answer without reference to personal experience which has no place in this discussion.
Well then, neither does the original point about the wager.

[UndercoverElephant]

The same problem as the one with Pascal's wager. "Some other mechanism" includes lots of different and incompatible claims; belief in one particular way to "tip the quantum dice" inherently excludes belief in other, equally (im)plausible ways.

Which one do you pick?

But, of course, there's no way to avoid making such a choice. Because even if you choose to believe there is NO way to tip the quantum dice, that itself is a belief.....

The answer from most of religion would be this: you only get to tip the quantum dice if your motives are "pure" i.e. that you wish to serve the Whole System, and not yourself.

Aleister Crowley's answer: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, I assumed you knew what Google or a search engine was.

I also assumed the fact that you answered a question about the "sheep-goat effect" in the first place indicated that you knew what the term meant.

I had already specified what the term meant twice and it was the whole point of the discussion up to that point.

I am not sure how much more helpful I could have been.

I have posted it several times now. The first time you posted it you answered that you agreed.

Then, when I clarified whether you really did agree or not, suddenly you didn't know what the question meant any more.

Never mind, I am patient. I will post the question again:


So, for the umpteenth time - do you stand by your original answer to this question?

(and in case you had forgotten, here is the context of the debate) http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5547105#post5547105


Ah, right. No..sheep-goat effects sort of get in the way of claiming theories have been falsified.

[drkitten]

The answer from most of religion would be this: you only get to tip the quantum dice if your motives are "pure" i.e. that you wish to serve the Whole System, and not yourself.

But as has been pointed out many times in this thread alone, I have no compelling reason to accept or believe that answer.

Especially since statements like "your motives in taking an action will have a measurable effect on the efficacy of the action" tend to qualify as is statements, tend to be testable under the scientific magisterium, and tend to be disprovable.

[UndercoverElephant]

But as has been pointed out many times in this thread alone, I have no compelling reason to accept or believe that answer.


What have you got to lose by believing it?



Especially since statements like "your motives in taking an action will have a measurable effect on the efficacy of the action" tend to qualify as is statements, tend to be testable under the scientific magisterium, and tend to be disprovable.

That depends on the details mechanism and the conditions under which this proposed type of causality operates.

[Philosaur]

But it's also not something that you can avoid.

I mean, let's put a cheeseburger in front of you. You have two mutually exclusive choices -- you can eat it, or not. And you can't avoid making that choice, either. If you choose not to not eat the cheeseburger, that's just a pretentious phrasing for saying you're goint to eat it.

Certainly. I'd eat the cheeseburger.

In broader terms, every time you are faced with a choice of an action, you are implicitly forced to decide whether that action is good, is bad, or is morally neutral. You can get up in the morning or not, as you see fit. But science will not provide you with a grounded basis for a choice. You can recognize that if you don't get up and go to work, you will be fired. But that only matters if you already know, for other reasons, that you don't want to be fired or that being fired is bad.

Science will tell you that if you don't get up, you'll get bedsores. It will even tell you that bedsores are painful. But it won't tell you to avoid pain; you need to make that call yourself.

Any dumb animal can (and will) avoid pain. It takes a "smart" human to willingly endure pain. :)

Even if you decide that the reason to do anything at all is plainly and simply because you want to do it, you are still making an ethical choice to follow your wants. (That's a particular ethical system called "hedonism," and it's quite popular.)

Simply following your wants is what any dumb animal will do. Hedonism is a fancy word for ignoring all the reasons you shouldn't do something you want to do.

Do you really think that eating a cheeseburger because I want to is a matter of ethics? What if I'm five years old and have no idea where the meat comes from? What if I've never been told about the starving kids in China? I think there's something above and beyond simple wants that turns a choice into a matter of ethics. Personally, I think it has something to do with understanding how my actions involve the pleasure and pain of other sentient beings. But that's probably another thread...

Science may tell you that you want something. It may even be able to tell you why you want something. But it won't tell you to follow your wants. That's beyond science's purview.

Science doesn't make normative statements--agreed. But to be precise, the limbic system tells you to follow your wants. And your higher reasoning mitigates these impulses.

But you can't escape some form of non-scientific magisterium telling you what to do and what not to do. Because ultimately you will have to decide to do or not to do something, and that decision will be grounded outside of science.

The major truth that I took away from studying philosophy was that you (well--"I", really) can't avoid relying on *some* axioms. I know there are alternative explanations (coherentism?) but I think they just ignored their axioms rather than dispensing with them.

My problem with the magisterium of religion is that there *is* no one magisterium of religion. What we have are 6 billion sovereign religious magisteria--each with equal claim to ethical truth. Since we all have to live with each other, we need some intersubjective way to arbitrate these 6 billion points of view. Why *not* somehow leverage the most reliable intersubjective tools we have--math and science?

[Robin]

Ah, right. No..sheep-goat effects sort of get in the way of claiming theories have been falsified.
Ah, so we get back to my original point:
Robin: Believers like John Polkinghorne and Frances Collins - I would accept their word about the outcome of a scientific experiment.

UndercoverElephant: You might. James Randi would not.

Robin: And similarly his counterparts on the other side - like you - would not accept the result if a string of believers tested the result and came up with nothing.


In other words, no matter who conducted the experiment - if it came up with nothing then you would say that this is because the experimenters were skeptical about the results.

[Darat]

Can someone please point me to the religion that has quantum mechanics as part of its doctrines?

[drkitten]

What have you got to lose by believing it?

The possibility that by believing it, I will actually act to tip the quantum dice against my wishes, because there is an actively malicious God who hears my prayers or something like thiat.


That depends on the details mechanism and the conditions under which this proposed type of causality operates.

It does indeed. That's why this is only a tendency and not an ironclad proof. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong --- but that's sure as hell the way the smart money bets.

[UndercoverElephant]

Certainly. I'd eat the cheeseburger.



Any dumb animal can (and will) avoid pain. It takes a "smart" human to willingly endure pain. :)



The following is part of my undergraduate dissertation on Wittgenstein.

(NN = neural network)


8. Free Will, Pain and Religious Behaviour.

The controversy surrounding Penrose is given a close examination in the by (Hodgson, 2002) in the Oxford Handbook on Free Will. The first point of his conclusion is that classical physics has no place and no role for consciousness:

“Take pain for example. Pain has useful functions that explain why evolution has selected in in its favour: namely, it draws our attention to possible damage to ourselves and gives us a strong motive to take steps to remedy it and to avoid damage in the future. Yet if our actions were based on computation-like procedures governed by classical physics, then the pain would be a superfluity. A computer does not need pain, or any consciously-felt incentive, to make it run in accordance with its program, as required by physical laws of nature; so why would we?”

Let’s say we’ve got a NN trained to recognise pain signals in human nerves, and we attach it to a recently detached hand. It can certainly be trained to react to pain, but it’s not clear why there should be any “pain” over and above its reaction – a declaration that it has detected pain.

Now consider human beings and their relationship to pain. Mostly, we take action to avoid it. However, there are many religious traditions which place great importance on demonstration that one can overcome this reaction to pain e.g. Hindus who run through the streets with sharp implements through their cheeks or Christians who re-enact the crucifixion. This is relevant not only because these people appear to be able to override what the usually-dominant parts of their neural net is telling them to do. Critically, the overriding is done by something which is apparently acting in a non-rational way. These acts are demonstrations of religious passion, faith and religiously-inspired self-discipline. Wittgenstein himself would surely agree that it cannot have been any rational line of thinking which motivates these individuals to behave in this way.

Is it possible we could train an embodied NN to behave like this? Could we impart to a neural net which understood basic English the disposition to act in these ways?

Here there is a link back to the Tractatus. The Tractatus is a mystical text – a rigorous, structured attempt to show what cannot be said. It is an attempt to prove that absolutely nothing at all can be said about mysticism. Any attempt to say something about it will lead us to talk contradictory nonsense, by Wittgenstein’s own admission. Religious texts are of no use because they could only be interpreted as metaphors for something metaphysical which is in itself ineffable.

In humans, mystical and religious influences have to be combined with conscious self-reflection. Could a non-conscious NN be trained to wonder about the nature of existence, the meaning of life or what happens after death? If the answer to that question is “no” then I think it follows that the NN could not be imparted with any sort of religious motivation and would never exhibit any religiously-motivated behaviour.

[Robin]

I think it is pretty silly in any case to attach magisterium to abstract nouns like "religion" and "science".

The magisterium belongs to each of us.

[Robin]

Can someone please point me to the religion that has quantum mechanics as part of its doctrines?
UndercoverElephant's religion.

As I said before, this is not so much a NOMA between religion and science - it is a NOMA between UndercoverElephant and Science.

[drkitten]

Certainly. I'd eat the cheeseburger.

Fair enough. That's your (possibly) immoral choice. Among other things, science will also tell you that eating lots of fatty food will increase your weight and shorten your lifespan. Up to you, really.


Any dumb animal can (and will) avoid pain. It takes a "smart" human to willingly endure pain. :)

Right. That's one of the ways in which we know the fallacy of appeal to nature doesn't work when we're talking about morals. We seem to have an evolutionarily-programmed avoidance response to pain, but we also usually consider it moral to willingly endure pain in terms of a higher purpose (like working out for a long time at the gym after that cheeseburger).



Simply following your wants is what any dumb animal will do. Hedonism is a fancy word for ignoring all the reasons you shouldn't do something you want to do.

That's one way of looking at it. It's no less a moral theory for that.


Do you really think that eating a cheeseburger because I want to is a matter of ethics?

Yes.

Every choice you make, to do something or not to do something, is a matter of ethics. Or at least involves an ethical choice.

[UndercoverElephant]

UndercoverElephant's religion.


No. UE's religion accepts empirically-justified statements about material things.

[drkitten]

I think it is pretty silly in any case to attach magisterium to abstract nouns like "religion" and "science".

Not really. It's quite helpful, for example, to attach abstract labels to magisteria.

How the hell else are you going to find books in the library? Shelve them all by date of publication?

[UndercoverElephant]

Fair enough. That's your (possibly) immoral choice. Among other things, science will also tell you that eating lots of fatty food will increase your weight and shorten your lifespan. Up to you, really.



Right. That's one of the ways in which we know the fallacy of appeal to nature doesn't work when we're talking about morals. We seem to have an evolutionarily-programmed avoidance response to pain, but we also usually consider it moral to willingly endure pain in terms of a higher purpose (like working out for a long time at the gym after that cheeseburger).


Or wearing a hair-shirt and standing in freezing cold water for hours on end?

[drkitten]

Or wearing a hair-shirt and standing in freezing cold water for hours on end?

Somehow, I doubt that will do much for my tendency to overconsume cheeseburgers.

[Philosaur]

What have you got to lose by believing it?

Well, what if God/the Universe/the FSM *hates* it when people try and tip the quantum dice, and actually punishes people for doing so? Can you give me a compelling reason to believe your claim versus this one?

That depends on the details mechanism and the conditions under which this proposed type of causality operates.

Why propose a new kind of causality, or speculate on a type that operates within the subjective magisterium of religion? How would you decide the properties or processes of this new kind of causality?

In essence, it's either familiar causality (in which case we can make normal predictions) or it's another kind, in which case thinking we know more about it than we actually do would be a liability.

[Robin]

The answer from most of religion would be this: you only get to tip the quantum dice if your motives are "pure" i.e. that you wish to serve the Whole System, and not yourself.
Actually the religions that are followed by the vast majority of believers say that this world will be torn down in any case and a new perfect world put up in it's place.

I am not sure how the pursuit of personal eternal bliss is not serving yourself. That seems the ultimate self-serving motive.
Aleister Crowley's answer: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
What does Crowleyanity have to do with it?

[Wowbagger]

And you'd be entirely wrong. But, that is not what happens in practice. Religion cannot seem to steer clear of dabbling scientific matters, and science cannot seem to steer clear of investigating matters of morality and meaning.

Bear in mind that the term "NOMA" was originated by a scientist (Gould) to point out that science was not in opposition to religion. Science and religion do not need to oppose each other because of the different methods they use to answer questions, and the differentiation of values placed on those methods, and what they find.

If you placed borders on what those methods can answer for, there will be opposition on where the borders should be placed.

"I already agree that, strictly speaking, science cannot do this. But that is not an argument that science can't do this." If you accept that science by definition cannot derive "oughts," then you also accept that science cannot discover a way to derive "oughts."You make it sound like I am talking in circles. Perhaps I should clarify it this way:

1. Science does not give us "oughts".
2. However, "oughts" do not pop out of nowhere. They are derived from natural processes.
3. That means science can investigate where our own "oughts" come from.
4. This investigation could develop more detailed models over time.

5. In theory, science could eventually describe how all or most of our "oughts" developed, from first principles.

6. Once that happens, we no longer need humans to "prime the pump" with oughts. Science could provide its own "working-oughts", independently of what humans feel should be an "ought" (though, if the science in Step 5 is good, the working ones should match the human ones very closely.)

7. However (and this is important): Everything that comes out of science is still an "is" and not an "ought".
* Science in Step 5 is saying: "These are (probably) your oughts".
* It is NOT saying "These ought to be your oughts".

8. Humans can (if they feel so inclined) take the "effective and efficient" moral policies derived from this science at face value, and implement them.

9. If they do, they are, effectively, virtualizing the "is" of science into an "ought", by doing so.

10. NOMA is not relevant to the process.

Does that make it clear enough?

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, what if God/the Universe/the FSM *hates* it when people try and tip the quantum dice, and actually punishes people for doing so? Can you give me a compelling reason to believe your claim versus this one?


Many people, in one form or another, have made the claim I am making and nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed what you are suggesting.



Why propose a new kind of causality, or speculate on a type that operates within the subjective magisterium of religion?


The proposed causality operates on the same material universe that science investigates. Why propose it?: YEC proposes it, Jung proposes it, the Pope proposes it...religion proposes it.



How would you decide the properties or processes of this new kind of causality?


Subjectively. Unless you think Zen is science.


In essence, it's either familiar causality (in which case we can make normal predictions) or it's another kind, in which case thinking we know more about it than we actually do would be a liability.

That may well be true.