Can parsimony turn science into a religion?

Saying that it could be detected is rather questionable. If it could be objectively observed or reliably inferred from objective observations it would fall into the realm of science. But how can anything less be seen as "detection" ?I certainly can't count a purely subjective impression as detection, since it could be - and probably is - wrong. By my evaluation the evidence against there being something like the usual concept of a "soul" is strong enough that we should reject that idea.And I can't see why following a reasonable inference is religious in nature. A dogmatic conclusion that something invisible to science did not exist, if it were based only on a failure of science to find it, would be scientism, not science. Science could at most conclude that it was an unnecessary assumption (which would give reason to believe that it was false, but only as a tentative conclusion).

Robin, But they are about conciousness.The context that you were writing in was that you were equating the soul with conciousness. Catholic Scientist pointed out that this wasn't a good equivalent because the conciousness can be studied & the soul cannot. You then went on to say that studies on conciousness are about neurology, & therefore not conciousness (at least it's implicit that this was meant). My point was that this is false, & conciousness is neurology. Moreover, it is testable. Therefore CS is correct, the soul does not equate to conciousness.Moreover, from #9: False. They may not explain every aspect of conciousness, but they are most definately about conciousness. It is inescapable.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

There are no scientific studies on consciousness. There are scientific research reports that use the word "consciousness" in their title. But they don't actually study consciousness. There is no agreement on the meaning of "consciousness", and you cannot study what you cannot define.What is studies, are various observable phenomena that some people believe to be related to consciousness.

That which has no impact on our lives is irrelevant to us. It doesn't matter whether it exists or not. We should say that it does not exist, because what we normally mean by "exist" implies relevance to us.If something has some impact, then potentially it can be observed with the use of whatever that impact is. The soul is a little different, in that nobody agrees what it is. Some people take "soul" to mean personality. Others take it to be some aspect of consciousness that they believe to be independent of the physical body.The problem with "soul" isn't whether it exists or not. The problem is that it is a vague term and nobody quite knows what it means. When Catholic Scientist says the soul exists, and ramoss says that it doesn't exist, it is entirely possible that they are talking about two different things but just using the same word. Maybe they don't really disagree about anything other than terminology.

Exactly.

To science, it is not detection but to me....it sorta is. I think I can feel my soul so that is some kind of detection, be it subjective. Understood. That's where I totally disagree with you.Perhaps its my antithesis.Lemme fix it so it fits my opinion:

quote:

---

By my evaluation the evidence against for there being something like the usual concept of a "soul" is strong enough that we should reject accept that idea.

---

quote:

---

By my evaluation the evidence for there being something like the usual concept of a "soul" is strong enough that we should accept that idea.

---

Yeah, it turns science into a religion and that religion is scientism...So the answer to the title of this thread is yes?

I would say that my soul does have some impact on my life. But the impact is subjective and cannot be observed scientifically. So know what do we do? Just assume it doesn't exist? Again, so we should just assume it doesn't exist? I'm not gonna do that. Especially when I honestly think there really is something there, it just can't be scientifically identified.

But there are scientific studies about consciousness, no?

Since scientism isn't science the answer is "No".And if you have any real evidence for the existence of some sort of soul as it is usually conceived of I wonder where it's been hiding. The usual argument is dubious anecdotes of "out-of-body experiences".It really can't be compared with the results of the so-called "split-brain" operation which puts paid to the idea that there is a unitary consciousness independant of the brain.

That becomes a matter of personal choice. Science does not claim to have the answers.

So then, if we take the Principle of Parsimony and apply it to this situation (in our 'everyday lives' not 'in the lab') and go on to assume that the soul does not exist, isn't that kinda like using science in the (or as a) form of a religion?

But I'm saying its turning science into something it isn't suppose to be. Scientism is the religion that science turns into maybe? Yeah, I don't have any "real evidence" and I've never had an out-of-body experience. The results are pretty good.....

Scientism is more of an attitude towards science. Even worse for the thread title is that you need a form of scientism that elevates parsimony to absolute proof. But it is not parsimony itself which is the issue. Paarsimony still has a place as a valuable and necessary part of science as science, no matter how many people fail to recognise its limits.e

Yeah, I don't really think it a religion by definition but it can definately be religion-like. And I don't really see that happening, but I do think that parsimony is elevated higher than it should be, that's were I start having a problem with it. When its taken out of the lab and applied to philosphical or spiritual discussion or everyday life stuff. Ouch. Please don't think I fail to recognize its limits or don't understand its value or neccessity.