Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
47 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,025 Year: 5,137/6,534 Month: 557/794 Week: 48/135 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(2)
Message 71 of 432 (657456)
03-28-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Agnostic
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.

Science is built upon a foundation of naturalism, because otherwise, it can't investigate anything. It has nothing to say about supernatural events or beings, because they cannot be tested. They might exist, and if they did, science would be perfectly happy with that.

Science and spirituality can exist peacefully. The issues come in when spiritual or theistic people can't accept the things science says because of their interpretation of their religion. Or when they try to use science to "priove" their religion. Or when they try to force their religion into science classes.

If the religious would sit back, have their religion and either embrace the scientific discoveries or not, no one would care one whit. Science isn't out to destroy religion, but it seems some religious people are out to destroy science, and that's where the conflict comes in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:37 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 82 of 432 (657472)
03-28-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 5:53 PM


Re: Agnostic
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both.

Science constrains itself to the natural because it has to. It's called methodological naturalism. As soon as you allow supernatural explanations, the scientific method is blown to hell.

If you want to study supernatural things, that's great. What you'
re doing won't be science, but if you can come up with a method that gives demonstrably true answers, you've just invented a new discipline. If you're convinced this can be done, then do it. You'll be one of the most famous people in the world.

What I find interesting is that rather than creating this new discipline, you seem fixated on trying to wedge it into science, whcih would necessitate changing science fundamentally. The way we do science currently works. Proof is that we have cell phones, the internet, space ships, genetically modified food, vehicles, power, an understanding of our far past, etc. Why would you want to destroy that discipline just to study something the discipline was never intended to study?

While they currently seem diametrically opposed, I think it is more of a paradoxical scenario that is yet to be resolved.

Science is only diametrically opposed to those who dislike the conclusions that science comes to. Science isn't opposed to religion. Religion, by and large, isn't opposed to science. A few religious groups are opposed to science. Those are the people that need to be informed about the way science works (because they are largely ignorant of it), or they need to be told to keep their wacko ideas to themselves.

There is no conflict except where some force there to be one, and all the force is coming from one side. (Hint: it ain't the science side)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM bridgebuilder has taken no action

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 156 of 432 (657599)
03-29-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
03-29-2012 1:10 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
No, we can investigate something claimed to be supernatural, and we can determine if it is not supernatural or if it is unexplainable but so far no one has shown anyway that we could tell if it was supernatural.

I may be crazy, but I'm going to wade into this quagmire here.

Let's say something supernatural exists, such as a leprechaun.

Of course, we don't know it's supernatural, as that cannot be a conclusion we can make with any certainty, but let's just say, without our knowing it, it was, indeed, supernatural.

Now, we see this being and take it into the lab and study it. We would then, by definition, be studying something supernatural, even though we did not know that was what we were doing.

Right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 1:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 2:36 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 159 of 432 (657609)
03-29-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jar
03-29-2012 2:36 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
We can study what we can sense and test, but I cannot imagine any test that would show that something was supernatural.

I can't think of a test that would show something to be supernatural either. But that doesn't change whether something is supernatural or not, does it? Something can be supernatural without us being able to determine that it is. It can also be supernatural and have attributes we can study.

So, yes, we can study supernatural events or beings. We can't scientifically conclude they are supernatural. We may not even know that what we're studying is supernatural, but our ignorance has no bearing on whether the thing is supernatural or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 2:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 3:46 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 167 of 432 (657620)
03-29-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jar
03-29-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
The problem is when in our ********* we claim to have studied the supernatural.

You're right. No one could say with certainty that they (or we or anyone) has studied the supernatural. Though they could say that they have studied something and come to the personal opinion that it is supernatural.

But this is beside the point. All that was stated is that the supernatural, if it exists, can be studied, unless the supernatural cannot be detected in any way, which is pretty much the same as being nonexistent as far as we are concerned. No one said anything about knowing or claiming or concluding that something was supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 3:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:11 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 168 of 432 (657622)
03-29-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by bridgebuilder
03-29-2012 3:24 PM


Re: Agnostic
You still have not answered why you want science to study the supernatural, even assuming it exists.

Science is the study of the natural world, why would you want the study of the natural world to study something that's supernatural (i.e. not of the natural world)?

Edited by Perdition, : cut off my reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 3:24 PM bridgebuilder has taken no action

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 174 of 432 (657631)
03-29-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
03-29-2012 4:11 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
And as I pointed out, I can see no way to detect whether something is supernatural or not.

You're right. No one has said differently.

But again, being undetectable tells us nothing about whether or not something exists.

I never said it did. I said if it is undetectable, then it is no different from being non-existent as far as we are concerned.

Examples I've used in the past (and they are simply made up examples but we seem to have lots of that from others so I may get to play too) would be GOD influencing a doctor to explore one more option when diagnosing a patient, or GOD planting an inspiration that leads a person to some new insight or discovery.

But the brain of the doctor or the person being inspired has to detect the influence, or there has been no influence. We may never recognize the influence, but if it is not detected by the brain or somewhere, then nothing has been changed.

To claim that science studies supernatural is pretty pointless and in ever case mentioned so far we could restate the example without invoking supernatural.

You seem to be missing entirely the point Straggler and now I have been making.

We're not saying anyone can prove the supernatural. We're not saying science could ever conclude supernatural. What we're saying is:

quote:

Premise 1: Supernatural things exist and can be detected.
Premise 2: Anything that can be detected can be studied.
Conclusion: If supernatural things exist and can be detected, they can be studied.

NOTE: No where in there does it say that anyone knows the thing being studied is supernatural. No where does it say anyone concludes that it is supernatural. No where does it say that the word supernatural is ever uttered by anyone involved in the investigation.

If something can influence the natural world, we can point ot that influence, describe it, measure its length or height or duration, and write down those measurements. That is studying, even if we never figure out what it was. This includes both natural and supernatural events, beings or items.

If they can't influence the natural world, then they may as well not exist for al we're concerned, because, being natural, they will never influence us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:31 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 177 of 432 (657639)
03-29-2012 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
03-29-2012 4:31 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Again, no where in that are you studying the supernatural, you are simply studying the natural world result.

If you put a supernatural leprechaun on a scale and measure its weight, you're studying an aspect of something supernatural.

Just like if you picked up a dog and put it on the scale, you're studying the dog, even though you're only studying a single attribute of it.

Besides, you could study a supernatural aspect of the leprechaun. Its supernatural power is making gold coins appear out of thin air. What's to stop the researcher from taking notes like these:

12:15:37 PM - Subject's palm is empty.
12:15:38 PM - Subject's palm contains 5 gold coins.
Method of retrieval: unknown.

1:45:16 PM - Subject's palm is empty.
1:45:17 PM - Subject's palm contains 2 gold coins.
Method of retrieval: unknown.
Conclusions: Subject is not limited to a single number of coins. Subject is not limited to only an odd number of coins.
Subject is not limited to a single point suring the day.
Further questions: Is subject limited to a single size of coin?
Is subject limited to only prime numbered amounts of coins?
Must coins remain in contact with subject?
How long do coins last?

6:45:06 PM - Coins still exist, removed from subject
Conclusions: Coins do not need to remain in contact with subject.
Coins last at least 6 hours without contact with subject.

These are all observations about something that has happened supernaturally. Again, the researcher is probably not assuming the action was supernatural, but this is irrelevant to the fact that it was supernatural. It won't determine how the coins appeared, but it is studying the appearance of the coins nonetheless, and the appearance was supernatural in origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:55 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 179 of 432 (657643)
03-29-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
03-29-2012 4:55 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
How do you know that it is "a supernatural leprechaun"?

I never said I did. I simply stated that it is, for the basis of the example. As we've said, our knowledge of whether it is supernatural or not has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, supernatural.

Also, whether we know that it is supernatural or not has no bearing on whether we can study it or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 5:10 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 181 of 432 (657645)
03-29-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
03-29-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
So then how are you studying the supernatural?

Well, because the thing you are studying is supernatural, regardless of whether you know that or not.

Just like if you dig up a dinosaur bone and start noting its length and shape, even before you know what it is you're studying, you're still studying a dinosaur bone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 5:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 5:19 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 184 of 432 (657659)
03-29-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
03-29-2012 5:19 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
But you made a claim that you put a supernatural leprechaun on a scale and measured its weight.

Wow. You're not getting past the set-up of the example and the example itself. The person in the example has no idea what the thing is (or maybe s/he thnks it might be a leprechaun because of its small statute, green clothing, Irish accent, and ability to make gold appear, it really matters not), but regardless of what the experimenter knows or thinks or claims or concludes, the thing is, in fact, a leprechaun.

When the researcher studies it, the researcher is studying a leprechaun. The leprechaun is supernatural. Therefore, regardless of what the researcher thinks, knows, claims or concludes, s/he is studying something supernatural.

I'm not sure why you keep coming back to the claim. There is no claim. There is a subject, there is studying of the subject. In this example, the subject happens to be a supernatural leprechaun.

I am asking you how you know you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale?

It doesn't matter what I know. The thing is what it is, regardless of what I know, think, claim or conclude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 5:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 6:35 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 187 of 432 (657663)
03-29-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jar
03-29-2012 6:35 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
But you made the claim.

I did not. I set up the example, and in doing so, I informed the reader of aspects that anyone actually in the example would be unaware of. Or in other words, I know it was a leprechaun because I'm the one making the example and I wanted a leprechaun to be in the example.

Now with your artifact example you can bring in folk to examine it and they can determine that from what is seen it is or was a bone.

Yes. People can come in, examine it independently. You may have them come to a consensus that the bone is from a Diplodicus. You may have some people say Diplodicus and others say Triceratops. But all of that has no bearing on the fact that it is actually the bone of a Brachiosaurus.

You can study something without knowing what it is. Indeed, that is often the reason to study it in the first place.

But you are claiming that you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale and I am asking, "How do you know that?"

Ok. Subject A was put on a scale and the weight was taken.

Do you need me to explain how I know it was a Subject A? Or can you accept that it was a Subject A because I told you it was in setting up the example. Do you need me to tell you how I know there was a scale available for the researcher to use, or can you accept that because I told you there was a scale in setting up the example?

The object put on the scale is a leprechaun, regrtadless fo what I think, know, claim or conclude.

IF leprechauns exist, and
IF someone happens to catch something that, unbeknownst to that person, is a leprechaun.
THEN someone can study the leprechaun, regardless of whether or not they know what it is.

Does that make sense to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 6:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 6:47 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 189 of 432 (657665)
03-29-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
03-29-2012 6:47 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
You continue making claims as in "The object put on the scale is a leprechaun, regardless of what I think, know, claim or conclude."

How do you know it is a leprechaun?

It's like banging my head into a wall or talking to a rock. Do you understand the concept of setting up a hypothetical situation where things exist merely because you say they do iun order to see what comes from that premise?

It's a thought experiment.

I don't know there are leprechauns. Indeed, I'm fairly certain there aren't.

Hypothetically, however, I can conceive of a scenario where leprechauns exist, one gets caught by someone who thinks, "Oh, I've never seen this type of creature before. I wonder what it weighs."

They then weigh it and take down a measurement. They have just studied something. Now, if you refer back to the premise of this hypothetical situation. The thing is a leprechaun. No one knows that.

So, the person studied something that, unbeknownst to anyone, was a leprechaun. So, unbeknownst to them, they have studied a leprechaun. So, unbeknownst to them, they have studied something supernatural.

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is so hard for you to get, and I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

As long as what you put on the scale is "subject A" and you don't then make a claim that it is a leprechaun all is fine. You have shown no basis yet though for the assertion that it is a leprechaun.

But we can accept that Subject A, is, indeed, something, right? Subject A is not what it actually is, that's just a placeholder because we don't know what it actually is.

Now, let's just say that it is a leprechaun. I'm making no claim, I'm stating a hypothetical. Does the fact that we don't know what it is, stop it from being a leprechaun? Does the fact that we don't know what it is somehow convey upon it some ability to be studied that it would not have were we to posit or even know that it was a leprechaun?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 6:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:12 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 194 of 432 (657673)
03-29-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
03-29-2012 7:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
How do you test those things which are supernatural?

Well, if Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural, Subject A, itself, is supernatural, even if all you can study are the natural aspects.

Knowing that Subject A is wearing green, is still a valid observation during a study of Subject A. If Subject A also has the ability to summon gold, that has no bearing on whether we studied Subject A. But, if Subject A has the ability to summon gold, Subject A is supernatural, regardless of whether we ever see Subject A summon gold.

How do you test those things which are supernatural?

As I said in a previous post, you can measure the effects of the supernatural ability or event. If a supernatural ability or event makes something detectable happen, you now know something about that supernatural event or ability: it can cause that detectable thing to happen.

And even if you want to get pedantic and say that we detect something, but can never say that this supernatural ability or event caused it, we have still measured something that was caused by the supernatural event or ability regardless of whether we can ever conclude that we have done so.

To use an example from you:

Suppose God inspires a man to paint a picture.
The man, while being inspired by God, was wearing a neural sensor.
The sensor measures an electrochemical signal that is indistinguishable from the normal workings of the human brain.
No one makes any sort of connection between that signal and divine inspiration.
The study is determined to be a failure and the data is destroyed.
The man goes home and paints the picture (or not, I mean, he doesn't have to do what he's inspired to do, does he?)

Now, the inspiration was divine (i.e. supernatural), the signal the inspiration caused was detected. No one noticed it. That doesn't mean the supernatural signal was not detected, studied, and ultimately discarded as normal (erroneously).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:27 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2508 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 196 of 432 (657676)
03-29-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jar
03-29-2012 7:27 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Sorry but how do you determine "Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural"?

You don't have to know it has an attribute for it to have that attribute, do you?

If, suddenly, all the people in the world became blind, would that suddenly mean grass was no longer green? The grass still has the attribute of being green, whether we can detect it or not.

And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.

The cause was supernatural. That means, the thing caused can be caused by something supernatural. That means the supernatural thing can cause the thing that was detected. Therefore, the detection of something that was caused by something supernatural tells us something about the supernatural. Whether we understand what it is telling us, whether we come to the correct conclusion about what it's telling us, whether we even know something is being told at all is irrelevant.

If someone whispers something at us in a foreign language that nobody heard, doesn't diminish the fact that something was todl to us. We don't know something was told, if we did, we wouldn't know the content of what was told, and even if we did, we might be misinterpreting it, but all of that is irrelevant to the fact that something was told.

AbE:

And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.

I actually disagree with this, too. If something's origin is supernatural, it, itself, is supernatural.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:44 PM Perdition has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022