|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
If humans were not satisfied with "Osiris was chasing his cock down the Nile this season and forgot to work his magic" as an answer to "why did my crops fail?" then we'd never have planted next years crops.
It's good enough that a small percent of people are not satisfied, but the rest of the population can just take whatever's offered and get on with the 'important' stuff. So as a pragmatic hypothesis, the supernatural one has succeeded wonderfully. We need to have some intellectual curiosity, but not enough to undermine our survival and reproduction prospects. That's what we've evolved with, and as long as I am me, I'll continue to be lured by spooky explanations that 'feel' good (ie., as long as my brain exists and is generating a functioning mind). But obviously, any hypothesis which maintains unverifiablility and unfalsifiability at its core is a bunch of wank as far as actually providing any explanation in which we can have real confidence in. Though we certainly have the capacity to have a feeling of confidence about them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Well it seems obvious to me. But apparently it isn't nearly so obvious to a huge number of people. What is it that either we are seeing that they are not or they are seeing that we are not? Your mind contains a model of the world that it expects is accurate. Seeing something isn't really a question of some Cartesian entity accepting photons...it is 'merely' a near real-time model. Someone might be visually exposed to some bit of evidence that undermines their existing model and the brain weighs things up. The existing functional model that has gotten us this far - or an unknown model based on one experience. Brains tend to choose the former more. As such - their 'visual model' of what they are experiencing when confronted with something might be quite different than our own. What they aren't seeing therefore (I think) is a viable alternative model that can be reasonably adopted to account for all the things they have previously experienced (memories of which are altered to retain consistency...). Basically it's the old 'worldview'/cognitive dissonance argument. They see it - they just make different links, associations and inferences (or just plainly cast it aside as an outlier).
And that feeling of confidence seems to ultimately be responsible for a great deal of dispute. The EvC debate board would I suspect be a very quiet place without it. Yep - and it's also how professional poker players make a profit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK. But is it "correct"? How do they (or indeed we) determine this? Epystemology 101. Def your bag!!! They're both 'correct' and they're both 'wrong'. It really depends on what you are measuring with 'correctness'! The only way we can measure 'accuracy' is through using multiple independent measuring tools. A system seemingly unavailable to dualists. They can only measure things with one instrument - their mind. If that's not callibrated to an 'accurate as measured by multiple independent measuring tools' - then it's probably going to give innacurate answers. One can't expect to accurately conclude how long something is when you are using a ruler of unknown length to measure it! But they'll probably be 'good enough' to allow survival and reproduction.
Why is "their" view unreasonable and "our" view viable? What makes it such? In the sense I was arguing it - their view is reasonable. But as for why their model is likely to contain inaccuracies - the above should suffice.
So are all POV equally valid? Valid to what measure? Not equally accurate, perhaps.
Yep. And if there was a "reality" poker game the supernaturalist would be clasping his hands over his naked genitals whilst debating which sock to remove as the last garment before one Why not? It's a Dead Cert!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Discussions using the word ''supernatural'' will often amount to nothing if the definitions aren't agreed upon in the beginning. We can see it here in the exchange between JUC ans straggler where they obviously aren't using the same definition of 'supernatural' Indeed. Your multidimensional universe idea highlights this problem quite well. Of course, as a monist - I am perfectly happy that there is just a 'natural' world. It is the dualists who have to tell us what this other 'substance' is. Some dualists believe the spirit realm (or supernatural or non material) is a realm of perfect abstract ideas (aka Platonism). Others have less defninitive understandings of what they are talking about. Locke seems to have gone for the traditional dichotomy of active but immaterial substance and passive but material substance. Which would seem to indicate that 'energy' was spirit and 'baryonic matter' was earthy substance. But physicists have killed that line of thinking by showing how they are the same thing (the monists were right in that case). Indeed, those who believe in the supernatural rely on everybody else's cultural views of some kind of ghostly spooky spirit stuff to carry them through such discussions. I doubt many 'supernaturalists' would be satisfied to learn that the universe was created by a scientist who was made up of the same core stuff as we were and whose linneage evolved quite 'naturally'. But they need to have something spooky and spiritual - otherwise there's no soul which is, they generally assure us, definitely not natural/material. Oh - forgot to add: many supernaturalists need a way around the laws of Thermodynamics or they lose all prospects at immortality... Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The requirement to consider something possible can be borne from ignorance. Until we know that something is impossible how can we consider it to be anything other than a possibility? Until it can be demonstrated that it is possible - I don't see how anyone can say that it is. Just saying "I personally am not in a position to say that it is impossible.", doesn't seem sufficient to me to say "It is therefore possible.". I could say it is possible for the Libyan Lottery numbers 1,30,85, 256, 7 to be million pound winners on July 26 1976 because I haven't researched the Libyan Lottery. But if there is no such thing as a Libyan Lottery or if the numbers in it only go up to 48 or it didn't start running until 1998 or the lottery is never run on a Monday....then it isn't actually possible at all and my claim "It's possible." is in fact, false. The accurate sentence is "I can't rule it out or confirm it as true, but this is due to an insufficient amount of information with which to do either." Likewise if someone says "It's possible that God exists." are actually making a claim they have no grounds to make. They have no way of knowing if it is possible that God could exist. Once all the facts are known - it may turn out to be impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I agree. But still the existence of God remains a possibility does it not? I don't know the underlying rules of metaphysics for reality: so how could I know the answer to that question. God hasn't, and presently cannot be ruled out. But that doesn't make it possible. I appreciate the distinction between 'unevidenced possibilities' but I think too many people run with "But it is possible!?" so I prefer to ask "Is it?" rather than say "Yes!". There is a better, more precise term that avoids people running amok with "But it is possible"... God is unfalsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And if it is unfalsified it remains a possibility does it not? Certainly that would be the anticipated response from one advocating a theistic or agnostic position. Indeed - but possibility has the implication of being possible (which we don't know). It's a great refuge for the equivocator. If the two are being used synonymously (which they seem to be) then the unfalsified has less ambiguity. And it also draws attention to the unfalsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Unless disproven the existence of god remains a "possibility" (in the unfalsified sense) does it not? If you choose to use the word 'possible' to mean 'not yet demonstrated to be impossible'. But I think that's misleading and dangerously open to equivication.. So I try not to.
The fact that the term "possibility" refers both to that which is positively evidenced as being something worthy of being considered possible Vs something that has no basis for belief at all other than it's status of being unfalsified is the problem here. ...The "possibility" issue is a a terminological problem that infests the whole of EvC debate. How do we solve it?
Ask for evidence that God is possible if someone claims that it is. And don't concede that God is possible just because you can't prove the contrary is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again I agree. But the likes of RAZD and Bluejay will insist that the existence of the supernatural is "possible". And you could say "Demonstrate this is true rather than demonstrating that its contrary hasn't been proven true (or cannot be proven true." - There are people on this board that insist on all sorts of things. Treat them the same: Demand evidence that god is in fact, possible.
They are asking how anyone can legitimately be atheistic towards something that is "possible". How do you deal with that?
Straightforwardly enough: It is 'possible' that guy over there owns Brooklyn Bridge and that it is 'possible' that if I give him a thousand pounds he'll give me the deeds. But I'm not going to. Since I'm not going to, that implies that I don't believe the claim.I am an aGuyOwnsBrookylnBridgeAndIsSellingItCheapist. I just ask Agnostics "Do you hold the belief "God exists"?" If they don't they are agnostic atheists like me. They probably just treat people that claim God differently than they do potential conmen: so I'll ask why. Possibly out of 'respect' or not wanting to be viewed as a Dickish Gnu Atheist.
You have no choice but to distinguish between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities as far as I can see (which is what I end up attempting to do) How about falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims, verified claims and unverified claims. You don't even have to suggest how they are verified or falsified. RAZD's God is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, for example. It is therefore implied that it is 'unevidenced' and 'not demonstrated to be impossible' without the ambiguous language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I just wish it were as easy in practise as you make it sound. Because you only have to read this thread to see that a large number of people here just take it as read that anything designed to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable is deserving of utter agnosticism of the sort that says we can make no statement of belief either way. And any argument to the contrary is treated as obviously extreme in some sense. It's easy enough for you to say "I don't agree it is possible. Show me that it is.". And when RAZD or whoever disagrees - call him a pseudoskeptic until he shows the evidence
I think it ultimately comes down to the difference between those that take each proposition and decide how knowable or unknowable it is based on it's details, and those who simply ask "on what basis is this proposition even to be considered"? If it is unknowable - just remind them that if they cannot know if it is possible either then they shouldn't claim it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Those are two very distinct questions. How do you justify failing something without first testing it? How do you test something that is inherently untestable? One may say a supernatural explanation is irrelevant, but to say it has failed is preposterous. Supernatural Hypothesis: If you sacrifice a goat to Mubu, it improves your chances of your crops growing without disease as Mubu will use magic powers to hold back evil spirits. Test: compare crops grown with the sacrifice to crops grown without. If the result is that crop disease distribution is basically the same over a large number of trials then the hypothesis is a failure by any reasonable standard. Hypothesis 2: If you sacrifice a goat to Mubu, it improves your chances of your crops growing without disease as Mubu will use magic powers to hold back evil spirits...as long as you don't check to see if Mubu is working. Problem: How can anybody have rational confidence that this is true if it cannot be checked for truth?
As noted above, supernatural explanations are not materially testable. The notion that one can have a 'supernatural hypothesis' is oxymoronic. Many are testable, have been tested, and have failed. The ones that have not failed have done so by being untestable. Since they are untestable, there is no way anyone can have confidence in them. When 'immaterial causal agent' can be tested, it fails.When it can't be tested, its useless since we can't hold any confidence in it. How is this not the very definition of a failed hypothesis? Either it consistently fails or gives us nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Forgive me if you've already posted this somewhere, but would you mind laying out your personal definition (how you use the term) for 'supernatural'? From asking folk throughout this thread, it's become clear to me that there are rather different notions of what constitutes 'supernatural', and I think getting your understanding of the term would be a good place to start a discussion between you and me. Message 24 is my post on the definitional problem. However, for the purposes of advancing the debate I was making the following assumption:
quote: Hope that helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you suppose that it is hypothetically (logically, that is) possible for immaterial entities to effect actions on a material world?
I have no idea. But the hypothesis tends to include that this is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I am still having trouble understanding how it is you differentiate between a natural claim and a supernatural claim. What about cutting a goat and burning it is supernatural? Nothing. As I said, whatever the supernatural is, it would include intangible causal agents getting involved in the world. In the sacrifice example - it would be the intangible causal agent that can be invoked for aid in crop protection, not the natural activity that is used to invoke it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So, how does your 'experiment' test the 'supernatural'? How does it allow us to draw any conclusions whatsoever on the 'supernatural'? It tests the hypothesis. If sacrificing does not produce more non diseased crops than non-sacrificed for crops then we know that the supernatural hypothesis: Mubu will protect against crop disease for sacrifices must be false. Yes, we also rule out any natural hypothesis linking goat burnings to crop success and show the perception of greater crop success was not accurate. The successful hypothesis was "The perception is not correct.", and has evidence of similar perception errors that people make that are similar as support. The failed hypothesis for the observation was "Mubu interceded to drive away disease spirits." The latter was a supernatural hypothesis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024