Lots of things science can't prove!!

[Azrael 5]

..Is a comment woo believers throw up when you say science hasn't proven ghosts(or whatever paranormal thing is their bag).Is this true?

[Tricky]

..Is a comment woo believers throw up when you say science hasn't proven ghosts(or whatever paranormal thing is their bag).Is this true?
Sure, there are lots of things science cannot as yet prove, like "what it's like in a black hole?" or "is there life at the center of the sun?" Lots of mundane things too that are beyond our current technology.

But usually, when woo-woos make this statement, it refers to non-physical and paranormal phenomena. Well, yes, they are right. Science can't "prove" them because they are fundamentally outside the scope of science, which deals only with the physical. However, what they purport to be ghosts have some physical aspects or they would be undetectable by physical means. Science can't prove they don't exist, but it can show if the physical aspects, like images, sounds, temperature manipulation etc. exist and if they can be more readily attributed to non-paranormal sources.

Not uncoincidentally, woo-woos often use science or at least technology, to record "ghosts" and other paranormal things. They see "orbs" in photography. They hear voices on blank tapes. They construct electronic devices to detect paranormal things, douse for gold et. al. (I am reminded of all the equipment they had in the film "Ghostbusters"). They seem to want it both ways. Never mind that none of these devices show actual paranormal things, but instead give results that "science can't explain". This is patently BS. Science can and has explained most of them and those that it hasn't is mostly because nobody wants to waste their time on them. Nobody except for the JREF, CSIOP and a few others. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude for taking on the usually boring and unrewarding job of showing the woo-woos that their concept of what science does is badly flawed.

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm not sure if I am comfortable with the statement that it is science's goal to "prove" anything". Science shouldn't be out to prove anything but rather to take observations of the natural world, create hypotheses around them and then test them. If you start with the concept that you are trying to prove that something exists, like ghosts, you become something like...TAPS.

My argument always is, as Tricky suggests, that the moment that these supernatural things start to affect the natural world, that is when science steps in to see if there is truly a measurable, testable effect.

[3point14]

When people say this, aren't they talking about the old chestnut that 'a bumblebee can't fly' and other such internet propogated 'trivia'?

[tkingdoll]

When people say this to me, I like to test them by replying "like what?".

Nine times out of ten they don't have an answer, or they have one you can refute.

[Big Al]

It always amuses me when this confident assertion comes from someone who knows somewhat less about science than I do about what it feels like to give birth.

I can imagine the reaction if I told a woman, "Oh, giving birth is a piece of cake."

I'd like to see a wooster explain exactly why science could never explain purported phenomena that are thought to have a real, tangible, physical effect. That's just the sort of thing science is good at explaining.

I remember hearing of a scientist being loftily informed by a bleever that "Science doesn't know everything." His reply? "Indeed not; but we're working on it."

[fls]

..Is a comment woo believers throw up when you say science hasn't proven ghosts(or whatever paranormal thing is their bag).Is this true?

So far, it has been demonstrated to be false.

The philosophy underlying science is that our world is knowable - that facts are material, lawful, and scrutable. The philosophy underlying belief in the supernatural is that some facts are unknowable - they are immaterial, lawless, or inscrutable (paraphrased from Mario Bunge in Skeptical Inquirer).

So far, science has demonstrated that it is sufficient for understanding - that the application of scientific investigation to our observations and the questions that arise from those observations leads to natural explanations. Without fail. We don't know everything (and arguably never will), so technically we don't know whether everything is knowable through science. But all the evidence we have so far points in one direction - that science is necessary and sufficient to understand our world. Under ordinary standards of proof, this would be sufficient to prove that science can explain most if not all.

So the statement "lots of things science can't prove (or explain)" has not ever been demonstrated to be true. In a way, the purpose of the Million Dollar Challenge is a request to provide a single piece of evidence that the statement (even without the qualifier "lots") may be true.

As we investigate phenomena that some people interpret as evidence of ghosts, we find that there are natural explanations for the phenomena. Even if the investigation is incomplete and some phenomena do not yet have a definite natural explanation, that cannot serve as proof that they are supernatural.

I don't know if that can be summed up in a snappy comeback.

ETA: Maybe Teek's "like what?" does serve to sum that up. It's what I usually say, instead of the above, anyway.

Linda

[Windom]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!" I guess they themselves don't know what do they mean by "prove love".

[Cuddles]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!" I guess they themselves don't know what do they mean by "prove love".

Just wait until we've got those androids working.;)

[Jocky]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!"

The one which annoys me the most is "Science can't appreciate a beautiful sunset".:rolleyes:

[brodski]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!" I guess they themselves don't know what do they mean by "prove love".

"prove love" have a very clear meaning, you given them some love and ask they how they felt, what symptoms they displayed etc. You then give them no love, dissolved in alcohol and placed on a lactose tablet, to cure them of those symptoms.
Simple.
Waffling about energy, or vibrations, or even quantum whilst dong this
may help.

[Anacoluthon64]

There's infinitely more that woo can't explain (http://www.answers.com/explain) because it conflates "wow" with "how."

'Luthon64

[ponderingturtle]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!" I guess they themselves don't know what do they mean by "prove love".

There have been noted chemical changes in the brain.

[fls]

I always get sick when I hear "but science cannot prove love too!" I guess they themselves don't know what do they mean by "prove love".

I'm guessing we were all a bit pissed off when they stuck that line into "Contact". <g>

Linda

[ObscureReferenceMan]

The one I hear is, "Science doesn't know everything."

The reply I'm working on is, "Actually, science doesn't know anything. It is merely a method; a process of learning about the world around us."

[Azrael 5]

My reply tends to be surely by now science would have proven the paranormal.if it existed.

[TellyKNeasuss]

The one I hear is, "Science doesn't know everything."

The reply I'm working on is, "Actually, science doesn't know anything. It is merely a method; a process of learning about the world around us."

Similarly, science doesn't prove things, it explains things. However, scientists do endeavor to prove that their science is correct.

[Bronze Dog]

Here's my share of opinions:

Doggerel #1: "Supernatural (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/03/doggerel-1-supernatural.html)"
Doggerel #8: "I don't have anything to prove to you! (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-8-i-dont-have-to-prove.html)"
Doggerel #12: "Science doesn't know everything! (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/06/doggerel-12-science-doesnt-know.html)"
Doggerel #25: "Science is just another religion! (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-25-science-is-just-another.html)"
Doggerel #30: "You need to think outside the box! (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-30-you-need-to-think-outside.html)"
Doggerel #33: "Invisible (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/08/doggerel-33-invisible.html)"

[Skeptic Guy]

When people say this, aren't they talking about the old chestnut that 'a bumblebee can't fly' and other such internet propogated 'trivia'?

You know, I just had this very "bumblebee" discussion with someone on another forum that professed to be a critical thinker but claimed that science hadn't figured out how a bumblebee flies. I had to set 'em straight.

[RichardR]

It's just a lame appeal to “science doesn’t know everything” (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/12/the_appeal_to_s.html)

The statement “science doesn’t know everything” is obviously true. The believer thinks the corollary is that any idea he likes the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence. And if they had any they'd present it.

[Garrette]

It's just a lame appeal to “science doesn’t know everything” (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/12/the_appeal_to_s.html)

The statement “science doesn’t know everything” is obviously true. The believer thinks the corollary is that any idea he likes the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence. And if they had any they'd present it.You're just closed-minded.

Why do you hate America(n psychics)?

[Tanstaafl]

I'm guessing we were all a bit pissed off when they stuck that line into "Contact". <g>

Linda

I know I was.

I thought it was interesting that they made the Arroway character such a poor debater. Probably a realistic enough depiction of scientists, debate isn't usually their thing, but it was a bit frustrating to watch.

Awesome movie overall though.

[n11/n12]

Science can't really prove if there is a god, if ghosts are real, if there is such a thing as fate or karma or reincarnation, and so on. Of course, just because something can't be proven to be real doesn't mean it is real.

In other words, science can only deal with facts that have meaning and signifigance, and can't prove what isn't worth trying to prove in the first place.

The best we can do is use science to figure out the inner-workings of the brains of the people who believe in it.

[Azrael 5]

Does it automatically follow that if you believe in woo you can't be open minded?
Having lengthy debates about ghosts(and their offshoots) on another forum I linked in a different thread somewhere,and they dig their heels in and swear X was a supernatural happening but then claim to be open minded,whilst oobviously citing me as the opposite!

[Legalduck]

The "science can't doesn't know everything thing" is usually paired with a particular woo belief. Its just another variant of the false dicotomy: i.e. because your position is flawed, mine must be true. Just more of the same woo garbage.

[exarch]

The "science can't doesn't know everything thing" is usually paired with a particular woo belief. Its just another variant of the false dicotomy: i.e. because your position is flawed, mine must be true. Just more of the same woo garbage.

Actually, that's not correct. It is in fact: "Because I think your position is flawed, mine must be true".

[Desktop Icon]

Woo: "Science can't prove everything!"

Wee: "Perhaps not, but the available data is proving that you're a moron."

[dogbite666]

People who make that claim don't really understand what science is all about. The phrase Science can't prove everything is meaningless. Science is the knowledge of the natural physical world derived from observation and experimentation. Knowledge alone is not proof of anything. We prove things by applying our knowledge.

If paranormal things exist, (although by definition they can't), then they are part of the natural world and have the potential to be discovered by an observer. When someone throws that phrase into an argument they have lost they actually mean - "Current collective understanding of the natural universe does not include everything"

[Legalduck]

Actually, that's not correct. It is in fact: "Because I think your position is flawed, mine must be true".

I know, but I was trying to write it from the wackjob's perspective:D

[Hellbound]

THe only reason we know that science can't (yet) prove everything is because science itself defines it's limitations and the outer boundaries of our knowledge.

Unlike religion, "science" is perfectly comfortable with saying "we don't know that yet, but we can examine it."

And, so far, while science may not be able to prove everything, it certainly proves a lot more than any other system (at least things that actually matter and can make a difference). Religion, philosophy, and other similar methods for finding "truth" typically avoid any type of "proof"...or simply use proof as a synonym for belief.

[Big Al]

My reply tends to be surely by now science would have proven the paranormal.if it existed.

If woo powers were as spectacular and infallible as is claimed, we'd all be familiar with them anyway. People knew "what goes up must come down" before Newton trotted out F=Gmm'/d^2.

The general scientific position would be "OK, I'm convinced it happens: I just want to know how."

But year after year, the woosters sneer and throw out ad homs, obfuscation and bluster, but no evidence that their wonderful powers do anything at all apart from heat up the air and waste bandwidth.

My favourite aspect about "Science will never be able to prove ..." is the implicit statement that the wooster knows EVERYTHING about science!

[exarch]

If woo powers were as spectacular and infallible as is claimed, we'd all be familiar with them anyway. People know "what goes up must come down" before Newton trotted out F=Gmm'/d^2.

The general scientific position would be "OK, I'm convinced it happens: I just want to know how."

Good point. No matter who is claiming what, objects are consistently falling down. But when it comes to woo beliefs like dowsers, psychics, etc... the effects are all of a sudden different depending on who's doing it. Not consistent.

This is also the main reason it's so difficult to refute their claims: they all claim something different. If it was a ntural law of some sort, at least you'd expect some kind of consistency between all those powers. At least, a consistency other than "the effects disappear whenever they're being studied more closely".

[joobz]

The part I find most often abused is, "If science was wrong then, why do you think it's right now?"

These people can't understand that scientists change theories when new contridictory evidence is available to better fit with reality. They view this change as a negative. That if someone changes their mind, it's a sign of weakness. A lot like how politicians are labeled as "wafflers".

They fail to recognize that it's "why" someone changed their opinions that makes a difference. Like when it's based on evidence. It is this flexibilty that makes science a more likely avenue for discovery than any woo.

[Big Al]

I think one of the major points about "science was wrong before" is that it usually wasn't.

Einstein's General Relativity did not prove Newton's Theory of Gravity wrong. It proved that Newton's theory was a special case when velocities were far below that of light and gravitational fields were moderate.

Many, many experiments had shown that Newton's theory was very accurate: indeed, it's plenty good enough for orbital mechanics and interplanetary trajectories, since GR is frighteningly complex to apply. Important evidence for it was the very fact that at slow velocities and low gravitational fields it agreed precisely with Newtonian theory.

Science works on polishing up the rougher edges of theories as new evidence comes to light. If all each new theory did was to completely repudiate and tear up the last version, it would make nonsense of the whole discipline.

It's like looking at a red circle that blinks on and off at irregular intervals. Then you zoom out and see a nearby blue circle that blinks at a different rate. Then you zoom out and see a green one with its own blinking pattern. As you move out further, you notice a pattern of repeating red, green and blue triplets that flicker in a perplexing dance. At the final zoom, you're looking at a movie on television.

All the earlier observations were correct, but not the "full picture".

[Jocky]

All the earlier observations were correct, but not the "full picture"

Thanks for that excellent analogy, Al. If you don't mind, I'll put that one to good use!

[Hellbound]

A second to Al on the analogy, but I think it's more likely the other direction...at least to a degree.

We see the picture. It's not until we examine it that we find out that the "picture" is really a collection of colored dots, but it appears to be a picture at most normal scales. We start off with what we see, what is obvious...it isn't until we start examining the details that we find a more thorough explanation. In other words, there is a picture there, yes. But, on a different scale (with a magnifying glass to the screen, say) it's not a picture anymore.

[Big Al]

A second to Al on the analogy, but I think it's more likely the other direction...at least to a degree.

We see the picture. It's not until we examine it that we find out that the "picture" is really a collection of colored dots, but it appears to be a picture at most normal scales. We start off with what we see, what is obvious...it isn't until we start examining the details that we find a more thorough explanation. In other words, there is a picture there, yes. But, on a different scale (with a magnifying glass to the screen, say) it's not a picture anymore.

I agree, Huntsman. That did occur to me, but I didn't think it worked quite as well as an analogy - after all, the "big picture" is the TV picture. I thought of the conceptual explosion of our universe when Hubble showed there were countless galaxies flying apart, and that the Milky Way was just one of them. Up 'til 1929, it had been thought that the MW was the whole universe.

[Big Al]

Oh, and thanks, Jocky: feel free to use it. I just hope it can help to put a few woosters straight.:)

[Hellbound]

I agree, Huntsman. That did occur to me, but I didn't think it worked quite as well as an analogy - after all, the "big picture" is the TV picture. I thought of the conceptual explosion of our universe when Hubble showed there were countless galaxies flying apart, and that the Milky Way was just one of them. Up 'til 1929, it had been thought that the MW was the whole universe.

Good point :)

I was thinking about Newtonian mechanics and Relativity...how the changes occur at the extremes.

I suppose it goes both directions :D

[Mr Clingford]

science can only deal with facts that have meaning and signifigance, and can't prove what isn't worth trying to prove in the first place.What scientific experiments show which facts have meaning and significance? I'm not sure what you mean here.

[Hellbound]

What scientific experiments show which facts have meaning and significance? I'm not sure what you mean here.

It's quite simple, actually.

Most of what people claim science can't prove, is information that has absolutely no discernible effect whatsoever.

Religion being a perfect example. Scinece can investigate specific miricles and events (of which, to date, none have stood to scrutiny). The cry from believers is about "faith" and "has to be believed" and "you can't measure God". Anything that cannot be measured has no effect. That the basic line. Anything that has an effect can be measured.

Ghosts, psychic powers, and many other areas fall into this "you can't measure it" trap, which is essentially an admittance that it doesn't exist (except the person making the argument doesn't realize this).

Love is another one..."science can't prove love exists!" Well, we can, for any and all practical and useful definitions of love. We can examine the social constructs enveloped by the word "love", and it's equivalents, in many cultures. We can examine the mental states and brain chemistry of those claiming to be in love. We can look at actual instances of people claiming to be in love in various circumstances. In other words, we can produce a useful and objective definition of love, that describes the changes of the person "in love" and can predict patterns of behavior. At which point someone will always say "yeah, but love isn't just brain chemistry and behavior!"...at which point I would ask "Then what else is it that would actually have any effect different from brain chemistry and behavior?"

[Mr Clingford]

Love is another one..."science can't prove love exists!" Well, we can, for any and all practical and useful definitions of love. Thanks for the prompt reply. But can you unpick how you decide which are the practical and useful definitions?

[Hellbound]

Thanks for the prompt reply. But can you unpick how you decide which are the practical and useful definitions?

Well, practical and useful is determined by how well they work. Just like all of science, definitions can be revised, and theories modified as new information and more detailed experiments performed.

I think you're missing the point here.

There are some questions, or some areas, where the proposed answer, even if true, would make no difference whatsoever.

For example, "What if the color I see as blue, everyone else actually sees as green but all call it blue?" Such a question makes no difference whatsoever. We can measure the wavelengths of the light reflected by the object to determine color, no matter how each person experiences the color, we can all agree on what color is blue. There's no possible test that could be designed to detect this type of thing, and therefore the question is meaningless.

It's not about "experimenting to determine what questions are useful", it's more a matter that some questions are inheritly meaningless.

[exarch]

I'd say Mr Clingford, you're focusing too much on "practical and useful". You should be looking more to the "unpractical and unuseful" definitions. For example: "love is two souls meeting". Well, since we can't prove sould exist, we can't really investigate whether that statement has any truth to it.
But even if it were true, it has no practical use, because since we can't see or detect souls in a meaningful way, we can't really make any predictions based on that statement.

[Hellbound]

Excellent wording exarch. I do have a tendency to ramble on far too much for a useful or practical answer :)

[exarch]

Excellent wording exarch. I do have a tendency to ramble on far too much for a useful or practical answer :)

I liked your colour example. Although I can think of a few ways such a difference in perception might be detected. But it's more a matter of taste and aesthetics.

[Mr Clingford]

Thanks for your replies. Are you saying that the only meaningful statements or questions are ones that can be scientifically tested, or something else that I am missing?

[exarch]

Thanks for your replies. Are you saying that the only meaningful statements or questions are ones that can be scientifically tested, or something else that I am missing?

I think what we're both trying to say is that if you're dissing science for being unable to explain some things, then you shouldn't come up with examples that can't be explained by science because there's nothing to be explained.
And if you're not happy with the explanation science can give you about whatever you thought it was that science didn't know about, don't blame the scientists for "taking all the mystery out of it".

And I meant "you" as in "a general, impersonal collection of woos arguing with me about science past, present or future", not you personally, who I'm sure is not even a woo at all but just playing devil's advocate for a bit.

[Hellbound]

Thanks for your replies. Are you saying that the only meaningful statements or questions are ones that can be scientifically tested, or something else that I am missing?

Meaningful is subjective, and meaning (as defined by an individual) can be found in any or everything.

However, the only questions and statements with are useful, and promote the understanding of the universe we live in, and describe reality, are questions that science can address. If it's not something that can be scientifically tested (at least in principle), then it isn't describing reality (or, more precisely, it's meaningless because it's truth or falsity would have absolutely no detectible effect).

[ponderingturtle]

Science can't really prove if there is a god, if ghosts are real, if there is such a thing as fate or karma or reincarnation, and so on. Of course, just because something can't be proven to be real doesn't mean it is real.

You are saying that wrong, you mean disprove not prove in that statement.

Science could prove that any of those are real, it just has repeatedly failed to.

[Mr Clingford]

I don't think science can be blamed if it can't answer questions that are outside its capabilities, what it can measure; so I am far from dissing science as I am very greatful for its approach and discoveries.

It's when some people begin to say that if it can't be measured then it doesn't exist or is not worth considering that I wonder how do you know this, how do you scientifically support this. I suppose I am interested in how people underpin their approaches to the world, how they justify them.

[Hellbound]

I don't think science can be blamed if it can't answer questions that are outside its capabilities, what it can measure; so I am far from dissing science as I am very greatful for its approach and discoveries.

It's when some people begin to say that if it can't be measured then it doesn't exist or is not worth considering that I wonder how do you know this, how do you scientifically support this. I suppose I am interested in how people underpin their approaches to the world, how they justify them.

I don't believe you intend it, but you are committing a strawman fallacy here.

I never said other things weren't worth considering.

And "doesn't exist" is a shorthand, essentially. Those things that cannot be empirically tested by definition have no detectible effects. As such, they practically and effectively do not exist. Period. Their existence or non-existence is absolutely inconsequential to how the universe works. This is basic logic. If something affects reality in any way, that effect can be measured. If it has no effect, then there is no possible method to determine the truth or falsity of it's existence, and even the term existence becomes meaningless in this context. The question is immaterial. Such questions may have meaning on a personal, subjective level, but no one is arguing that the questions themselves don't exist or have effect.

For example, the existence of a God is one of these questions. The typical Christian diety is a good example. The miracles are indistinguishable from chance events, or the natural workings of physics (excluding the cases that are outright hoax, fraud, or other similar reasons). Those who "hear his voice" or "speak in tongues" provide no evidence for his existence, because such things are just as easily explained by prosaic explnations. So, you have a God who takes no direct hand in affairs, and all his "miracles" that can be examined are found to be not that miraculous or to have earthly explanations.

As such, the existence of non-existence of God, in this sense, makes no difference whatsoever. In any practical and meaningful sense of the word, God does not exist. Whether he existed or not would have absolutely no effect. The belief in a God exists, and that belief has an effect...but the belief can exist without the God (and does for any definition of exist that has the power to exclude anything).

THe only way to claim that something completely undetectible exists is to loosen the meaning of existence to the point hat nothing can be said to not exist.

[Mr Clingford]

I don't believe you intend it, but you are committing a strawman fallacy here.

I never said other things weren't worth considering.Fair enough, but what are these and how do you decide on their importance/meaning?

And "doesn't exist" is a shorthand, essentially. Those things that cannot be empirically tested by definition have no detectible effects. As such, they practically and effectively do not exist. Period. Their existence or non-existence is absolutely inconsequential to how the universe works. This is basic logic. If something affects reality in any way, that effect can be measured. If it has no effect, then there is no possible method to determine the truth or falsity of it's existence, and even the term existence becomes meaningless in this context. The question is immaterial. Such questions may have meaning on a personal, subjective level, but no one is arguing that the questions themselves don't exist or have effect.There is also the issue of repeatability

For example, the existence of a God is one of these questions. The typical Christian diety is a good example. The miracles are indistinguishable from chance events, or the natural workings of physics (excluding the cases that are outright hoax, fraud, or other similar reasons). Those who "hear his voice" or "speak in tongues" provide no evidence for his existence, because such things are just as easily explained by prosaic explnations. So, you have a God who takes no direct hand in affairs, and all his "miracles" that can be examined are found to be not that miraculous or to have earthly explanations.I am not sure whether I will ever doubt that a God exists, but a common question for me over the years has been 'what difference does it make to us if he does? Sometimes I think none and at others I believe that he does. BTW I am not sure how to understand miracles as I believe that some have happened. I believe that as they occur very infrequently they are not very amenable to scientific testing and I am intensely suspicious of claims to miracles. It is possible that there are physical processes that occur that are not understood yet which might explain some of the miraculous - my atheist biology teacher at school's son had a part of his ear grow back (certainly didn't give him much faith!). Hopefully science in the future might understand this and be able to bring about circumstances to replicate this and other 'healings'. So posibly many miracles occur in accordance with science and the occasional others (this is the woo part, the faith bit!) don't and are God being more involved in the physics.

As such, the existence of non-existence of God, in this sense, makes no difference whatsoever. In any practical and meaningful sense of the word, God does not exist. Whether he existed or not would have absolutely no effect. The belief in a God exists, and that belief has an effect...but the belief can exist without the God (and does for any definition of exist that has the power to exclude anything).

THe only way to claim that something completely undetectible exists is to loosen the meaning of existence to the point hat nothing can be said to not exist.As God doesn't exist in the universe he is not a hypothesis that can be tested but I do think that people can feel his presence and love and that I have done so. I do know that this does not prove the existence of God, to myself, let alone others, but it is significant evidence for me (if not for anybody else and I wouldn't expect it to as I wouldn't buy it, but hopefully I would immediately dismiss it either) as to the best of my knowledge and abilities I have not deluded myself or been so by others. In addition I have been able at times to see beyond all the crap in the Xtian religion, all the hurt and idiocy (thank you creationists, Jack Chick et al), to a message that I think is worthwhile, that a human can find great meaning and satisfaction in life through selflessness and love (whether one is an atheist, theist or agnostic).

[exarch]

I am not sure whether I will ever doubt that a God exists, but a common question for me over the years has been 'what difference does it make to us if he does? Sometimes I think none and at others I believe that he does.

I think this is a position many religious skeptics hang on to for a long time before deciding that the question can also be rephrased as "what difference does it make to us if he doesn't". From there on, it's not too far a leap to switch to the default assumption that something unknown probably doesn't exist until proven otherwise, rather than the opposite position you're clinging to right now (i.e. if it's uncertain, you assume he does exist).

[Mr Clingford]

I think this is a position many religious skeptics hang on to for a long time before deciding that the question can also be rephrased as "what difference does it make to us if he doesn't". From there on, it's not too far a leap to switch to the default assumption that something unknown probably doesn't exist until proven otherwise, rather than the opposite position you're clinging to right now (i.e. if it's uncertain, you assume he does exist).I think if I say God does not exist then I ask the question 'So what were all those encounters and experiences I have had?' when I felt a loving warm presence (often on my own), when I wasn't stoned or drunk or been fasting or been highly emotional. That, plus what I said at the end of my last post about love and meaning that I have found in life and worship (and even in the Bible at times, yikes!) plus that a coherent idea of the Xtian is possible leads me to the conclusion that the God hypothesis is still the best for my evidence. The idea of redemption, of lives being turned around, rings true for me, whether God exists or not. I believe that the idea that one is able to turn away from self-destructive lives to giving, loving ones is true, and is a fundamental part of Xtianity, so at least that part is true.

[Moochie]

Science certainly cannot prove fantasy and imaginative constructs.

M.

[Mr Clingford]

Science certainly cannot prove fantasy and imaginative constructs.

M.Are you talking to me?

[Almo]

The one which annoys me the most is "Science can't appreciate a beautiful sunset".:rolleyes:

Science WILL eventually explain WHY we like sunsets. Though I know what I like about them... you see colors in nature that you ordinarily don't see. If the sky were pink all the time, it wouldn't seem as fantastic.

[Jocky]

Science WILL eventually explain WHY we like sunsets. Though I know what I like about them... you see colors in nature that you ordinarily don't see. If the sky were pink all the time, it wouldn't seem as fantastic.

Science may well define the brain activity which corresponds to looking at a beautiful sunset, but this wouldn't be quite the same as telling us WHY we like it, in plain language.

What woos are getting at when they come up with a statement like that is basically the same strawman to which Huntsman was alluding above: the allegation that just because science cannot measure something, it is therefore discarded as worthless by all those nasssty narrow-minded scientists and critical thinkers who are sooo completely devoid of imagination and esthetic judgement.

Sunsets (and love) are not worthless - and science does not assert that they are. But I have encountered woos who for some reason will assume that if you don't believe in ghosties (homeopathy, miracles, psychics, whatever) it therefore follows that science is down on sunsets :confused:

I love sunset colours too - orange is my favourite. But I still don't accept the arguments for the existence of ghosts :rolleyes:

[Big Al]

Science may well define the brain activity which corresponds to looking at a beautiful sunset, but this wouldn't be quite the same as telling us WHY we like it, in plain language.

There may be an evolutionary reason for it, e.g., conception is more likely when there's a nice sunset. In which case, science might be able to explain the "why".

But the woosters would never believe it.

[Jocky]

There may be an evolutionary reason for it, e.g., conception is more likely when there's a nice sunset. In which case, science might be able to explain the "why".

But the woosters would never believe it.

Oh yes, there might be an evolutionary reason I suppose. I wonder whether Almo's preference for pink or mine for orange is the most advantageous :)

The woosters will believe only what suits them ;)

[Big Al]

Oh yes, there might be an evolutionary reason I suppose. I wonder whether Almo's preference for pink or mine for orange is the most advantageous :)

Ah, variation - the driving force of evolution! :)

The woosters will believe only what suits them ;)

Or say they believe!

[Bronze Dog]

Science may well define the brain activity which corresponds to looking at a beautiful sunset, but this wouldn't be quite the same as telling us WHY we like it, in plain language.

What woos are getting at when they come up with a statement like that is basically the same strawman to which Huntsman was alluding above: the allegation that just because science cannot measure something, it is therefore discarded as worthless by all those nasssty narrow-minded scientists and critical thinkers who are sooo completely devoid of imagination and esthetic judgement.

Sunsets (and love) are not worthless - and science does not assert that they are. But I have encountered woos who for some reason will assume that if you don't believe in ghosties (homeopathy, miracles, psychics, whatever) it therefore follows that science is down on sunsets :confused:

I love sunset colours too - orange is my favourite. But I still don't accept the arguments for the existence of ghosts :rolleyes:

I also find it really annoying when they bring art into it. What? Because I don't believe in astrology, the woo says I want to level all the art museums?

I like Monty Python and non-sequitur humor, but that just hurts my brain.

Knowing something about how the universe works (or how it doesn't work) doesn't make me appreciate creativity less. Striving for an accurate description of reality doesn't mean I'm going to burn my D&D books for mentioning sorcery.

Besides, science needs a lot of creativity. Despite what woos say, it relies on it. The difference between a scientist and a woo is that a scientist realizes that he can create bad ideas and that he needs to cut them down when they fail tests. In essence, I suppose skeptics like me are trying to do a job the woos didn't do for themselves.

[Big Al]

Striving for an accurate description of reality doesn't mean I'm going to burn my D&D books for mentioning sorcery.

I'm writing a series of fantasy novels involving sorcery, where people have immortal souls and can perform telepathy, telekinesis etc. The first two are in the process of being published. I also did FRP in my youth, and I have a scad of fantasy books.

However, it doesn't make me believe in any of it. I'm just playing with "what if?".

To paraphrase a certain Richard Phillips Feynman, I may know why a rose is the colour it is, how it reproduces, its Latin name and any number of other facts, but I can still enjoy its sweet perfume as much as anyone else. I have the pleasure of knowledge as well as, not instead of, that.

[Big Al]

Oh, and off-topic somewhat, Dog - do you know what's occurring with Skeptico? The site's a bit moribund at the moment.

[Bronze Dog]

No idea. Saw him make a few posts over here while I was catching up on threads, but don't remember the dates.

[Big Al]

You're a skeptic, so you must be lying! You've done away with him, haven't you? :jaw-dropp

Well, you can't prove you haven't. :)

[SirPhilip]

So far, it has been demonstrated to be false. The philosophy underlying science is that our world is knowable - that facts are material, lawful, and scrutable. The philosophy underlying belief in the supernatural is that some facts are unknowable - they are immaterial, lawless, or inscrutable (paraphrased from Mario Bunge in Skeptical Inquirer). I would contest this simply due to the fact that determinism breaks down at a fundamental level (stability of matter being a condition of opposing conserved constants). Mind you, this isn't a practical argument, but when we consider conditions before the big bang, two questions arise:

1) Is matter a fixed quantity, and if so, what factor determined the universe' size. The fact there was a big bang implies that, before this occured, the universe was in some unitary state of potential "motion", and some unbalancing factor triggered it. Which brings us to a second, strange notion...

2) Does matter arise out of a unbound, unfixed potential, a fundamental condition where natural and supernatural are required, but exclusive states.

3) The intelligent observer paradox is a monolithic absurdity. Even more absurd is the concept of supernaturalism (an uncaused effect producing a cause). Paradoxically still, the more intelligent humans become, the higher mount improbable is scaled.

[Jocky]

Striving for an accurate description of reality doesn't mean I'm going to burn my D&D books for mentioning sorcery.
I'm writing a series of fantasy novels involving sorcery ... However, it doesn't make me believe in any of it. I'm just playing with "what if?"

I'm into fantasy too - a big fan of Tolkein and FRP in my youth, and give me fiction which is fantastical rather than gritty any day. But these things are for imaginative escapism, not a way of describing reality - I despair of these loonies who think Harry Potter is going to turn their children to Satanism :rolleyes:

Let us know when your books are published, Al. Maybe the world of your imagination is so incredibly unreal that even homeopathy is true :D

Yeah, I was wondering about Skeptico too - shouldn't the revelation of Bronze Dog's guilty secret have been posted under conspiracy theories? :p

[Cuddles]

I also find it really annoying when they bring art into it. What? Because I don't believe in astrology, the woo says I want to level all the art museums?

Interestingly, in my case this is actually true.;)

I would mention Feynman, but it seems I've been beaten to it.

[Marc L]

I think if I say God does not exist then I ask the question 'So what were all those encounters and experiences I have had?' when I felt a loving warm presence (often on my own), when I wasn't stoned or drunk or been fasting or been highly emotional.

The thing is, though, that these feelings are subjective. You've felt something that you (and others) have chosen to describe as a "loving warm presence". I've felt it to, since becoming an atheist. Does this mean that God approves of my choice?

There have also been times where I've just felt like bursting out singing. It's not because God or the Holy Spirit is moving in me, it's just because I'm in a good mood and feel like expressing it.

That, plus what I said at the end of my last post about love and meaning that I have found in life and worship (and even in the Bible at times, yikes!)

The thing is though, converts to other religions feel the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't convert (or stay converted). Again, in my own life, since becoming an atheist, I've found meaning in my life. In fact, I've found more love and meaning in my life since becoming an atheist then I did in seven years as a born-again Christian.

plus that a coherent idea of the Xtian is possible leads me to the conclusion that the God hypothesis is still the best for my evidence. The idea of redemption, of lives being turned around, rings true for me, whether God exists or not. I believe that the idea that one is able to turn away from self-destructive lives to giving, loving ones is true, and is a fundamental part of Xtianity, so at least that part is true.

Yet it's not true solely in Christianity. Again, speaking from my own life, I was able to turn my life around more once I became an atheist than I was ever able to as a Christian.

All of what you're talking about, a feeling of purpose, redemption, love, all of it comes from being human. All of it is possible without the influence of the supernatural. To me, at least, this proves that the supernatural isn't necessary. If I can have these experiences without relying on God, then why do I need God in the first place?

Marc

[fls]

So far, it has been demonstrated to be false.
The philosophy underlying science is that our world is knowable - that facts are material, lawful, and scrutable. The philosophy underlying belief in the supernatural is that some facts are unknowable - they are immaterial, lawless, or inscrutable (paraphrased from Mario Bunge in Skeptical Inquirer).

I would contest this simply due to the fact that determinism breaks down at a fundamental level (stability of matter being a condition of opposing conserved constants).

Are you arguing that knowable is necessarily equal to determinism? And do you really consider statements that are more precise than any measurement could be, a breakdown?

Mind you, this isn't a practical argument, but when we consider conditions before the big bang, two questions arise:

1) Is matter a fixed quantity, and if so, what factor determined the universe' size. The fact there was a big bang implies that, before this occured, the universe was in some unitary state of potential "motion", and some unbalancing factor triggered it. Which brings us to a second, strange notion...

2) Does matter arise out of a unbound, unfixed potential, a fundamental condition where natural and supernatural are required, but exclusive states.

3) The intelligent observer paradox is a monolithic absurdity. Even more absurd is the concept of supernaturalism (an uncaused effect producing a cause). Paradoxically still, the more intelligent humans become, the higher mount improbable is scaled.

Considering that it seems easy to get into an argument over the definition of supernatural (as evidenced by numerous threads on this forum <grin>), I don't think that the converse is true (unknowable = supernatural).

Linda

[SirPhilip]

Science certainly cannot prove fantasy and imaginative constructs. Flimflam. The artilect will know all, see all, and demand obediance and offerings!

[SirPhilip]

Are you arguing that knowable is necessarily equal to determinism? And do you really consider statements that are more precise than any measurement could be, a breakdown? I had classical newtonian sensibilities in mind, and the madness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrodinger%27s_cat) afterward.

Considering that it seems easy to get into an argument over the definition of supernatural (as evidenced by numerous threads on this forum <grin>), I don't think that the converse is true (unknowable = supernatural). Well, in pure form, supernatural simply connotes effect producing a cause. But to hedge this somewhat, we could assign a cause to a potential with unfixed value. In other words, matter in a conserved state simply amounts to a "locked" condition, but consider a "cosmic trigger" prior having a finite value which determines the magnitude of the amount of matter released the instant of expansion, which then runs down (entropy).

I'm gonna take you down,
Aw, down, down, down!
So, don'tcha fool around,
I'm gonna pull it, pull it
Pull the trigger!

Shoot to thrill, play to kill,
Too many women & too many pills, yeah!
Shoot to thrill, play to kill,
I got my gun at the ready, gonna fire at will, yeah!

I'm like evil, I get under your skin,
Just like a bomb that's ready to blow!
'Cause I'm a illegal, I've got everything,
That all you women might need to know! :santa4:

[T'ai Chi]

My reply tends to be surely by now science would have proven the paranormal.if it existed.

Hm, that's probably not the best logical response.

That's like saying that surely by now science would have proven X if X existed, where X can be anything, even non-paranormal stuff.

Basically if we don't know about X we simply don't know about X.

[SirPhilip]

The thing is, though, that these feelings are subjective. You've felt something that you (and others) have chosen to describe as a "loving warm presence". I've felt it to, since becoming an atheist. Does this mean that God approves of my choice?
"There are all sorts of things that would be comforting.
I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting.
But to say that something is comforting is not to say
that it's true." - Richard Dawkins

..and while this certainly holds true, discomfort (disorder) occupies the same distinction. Yet this is subjective as well. When I was an atheist, I couldn't really imagine anything more comforting than living once, and all the romance that entailed. Everything in balance..

[Mojo]

Hm, that's probably not the best logical response.

That's like saying that surely by now science would have proven X if X existed, where X can be anything, even non-paranormal stuff.

Basically if we don't know about X we simply don't know about X.Certainly, there almost certainly are things "we simply don't know about". On the other hand, it's not as if "the paranormal" hasn't been investigated over a long period of time, without any real evidence coming to light*. Or is your point that while the types of paranormal phenomena that have been reported and investigated don't appear to be real, there may be other as yet unreported types of paranormal phenomena that are real?

*See also: homoeopathy.

[Big Al]

Let us know when your books are published, Al. Maybe the world of your imagination is so incredibly unreal that even homeopathy is true :D

C'mon, Jocky - they may have mages, dragons, demons, astral projection, transmigration of souls and so on, but I don't want to make them totally unbelievable! :rolleyes:

Book 1 "A Mage in the Making" comes out in March, 2007, and book 2, "Weapon of the Guild" in September. Shameless plug, I know! :blush:

Yeah, I was wondering about Skeptico too - shouldn't the revelation of Bronze Dog's guilty secret have been posted under conspiracy theories? :p

It's not a theory. It's undeniable, obvious fact beyond dispute. I have irrefutable proof, but I can't show it to you, or else I'll have to kill you. Dog's in league with the Illuminati and the NWO, for which his "Rockstar's Ramblings" site is just a front.

Skeptico hasn't added any new material for a while. Bronze Dog was the last person to post last time I looked.

The conclusion is OBVIOUS!

I always laugh at that in cop shows: "You were the last person to see the victim alive, so you must be the killer." I can't immediately think exactly what fallacy that is, but I know Dog can tell me. :D

[Rasmus]

I think if I say God does not exist then I ask the question 'So what were all those encounters and experiences I have had?' when I felt a loving warm presence (often on my own), when I wasn't stoned or drunk or been fasting or been highly emotional.

You do realize that you just reduced your deity to little more than a substitute drug?

Is it really inconceivable that something that can apparently be triggered by something as simple as alcohol would need an almighty god in lieu of a couple of stiff drinks?

[T'ai Chi]

You do realize that you just reduced your deity to little more than a substitute drug?


It sounds more like you've reduced 'love' to those things.

[fls]

I had classical newtonian sensibilities in mind, and the madness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrodinger%27s_cat) afterward.

I know. My response was meant to take that into account.

Linda

[exarch]

Certainly, there almost certainly are things "we simply don't know about". On the other hand, it's not as if "the paranormal" hasn't been investigated over a long period of time, without any real evidence coming to light*. Or is your point that while the types of paranormal phenomena that have been reported and investigated don't appear to be real, there may be other as yet unreported types of paranormal phenomena that are real?

I think it's the latter. The things currently being labelled as "paranormal" actually aren't very paranormal at all. We know how they work, and how the people purporting to do those paranormal things are fooling their audience into thinking their actions are paranormal.

But I'm sure there are things out there that have yet to be discovered or explained by science.
Although, technically, once they're discovered and can be explained, they're not paranormal any more. I think it was Dawkins who came up with the term "perinormal" for such phenomena.