08 Dec 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI disagree. Can you give any explanation as to why science must be so restricted?
Nature, in other words particles, fields, and the various effects that supervene on them, is the subject and scope of science.
By insisting that Science has universal scope you have insisted that there is nothing outside of nature, so no supernature.
Not so. It is your insistence that Science be restricted that is at fault, not my insistence that science has universal scope.
Your position is one of ontological naturalism.
No, that is your incorrect interpretation of my position based on what I believe is a faulty claim about sciences scope.
There's nothing wrong with that particularly, you just have to realize that there's nothing intrinsically irrational about taking a position of dualism, or even some sort of idealist position such as Berkeley's where all that really exists is mind.
Lets suppose that all that really exists is mind. Would science become instantly useless? Really?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyThe problem I see is that if a boulder is observed to float through a solid brick wall without leaving a hole in it then either your observation is at fault or you do not have the correct 'natural law'. Natural law is the law that nature is observed to obey. If nature does not obey it, even in one instance, then it isn't natural law. Natural law is never violated by definition.
But I don't see how my definition of supernatural contradicts or is at odds with that because my definition doesn't imply all such purely metaphysical interpretations of observations must necessarily disobey apparent natural law and my definition would only call those such interpretation as being 'supernatural' as those that do disobey apparent natural l ...[text shortened]... , such a boulder magically floating through a solid brick wall without leaving a hole in it etc.
08 Dec 16
6 edits
Originally posted by Eladar"I believe it is the best explanation for what we observe"
I asked if you believe that it is true.
Simple yes or no will do.
generally implies
"I believe it probably/definitely is"
unless the person who is saying it is so irrational as to reject the best explanation for what we observe!
What's your problem?
Lets call that a "yes"; So .... so what of it?
It is a rational belief based on the evidence as opposed to an irrational belief not based on the evidence; what of it?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyThe difficulty is that there is not necessarily any discrepancy with natural laws. In the case of our Christian hearing the Voice of God and assuming the Christian is clinically sane then even with complete knowledge of the electrical activity in their brain (*) and a naturalistic theory which allowed one to interpret the data there is no strong reason to believe that one could rule out supernatural influence on thoughts. So you can't rule out supernatural intervention in events which are, apparently, in accordance with the known Laws of Physics.
I am not sure but I think I finally getting what you are getting at;
Are you saying there are certain purely metaphysical interpretations of observations that scientific method cannot conclude any definable probability (whether high probability or low probability) of any of those interpretations being true thus they are outside the scope of science?
If so, th ...[text shortened]... , such a boulder magically floating through a solid brick wall without leaving a hole in it etc.
(*) I've got something like the neural laces in Iain M Banks' Culture novels in mind here. Perfect knowledge of the brain-state.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do you intend to do an experiment on something that is not part of nature? It's not called natural science for no reason.
I disagree. Can you give any explanation as to why science must be so restricted?
[b]By insisting that Science has universal scope you have insisted that there is nothing outside of nature, so no supernature.
Not so. It is your insistence that Science be restricted that is at fault, not my insistence that science has universal scope.
Your p ...[text shortened]... ets suppose that all that really exists is mind. Would science become instantly useless? Really?
08 Dec 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHang on; if he assumes there is a God speaking to him then, regardless of how he believes this God is interacting with his mind, he is still assuming a God exists and, presumably, that God is supposed to be 'supernatural' which I take to mean it can disobey natural laws, such as able to float up against gravity to to violate the law of gravity etc. I mean, I presume he wouldn't call it a 'God' at all if it couldn't ever break at least ONE natural law we observe around us, right? Else this 'God' would be just a material thing because it would be subject to exactly the same constraints of other material things, such as boulders which cannot magically float up in defiance of the law of gravity, or being able to move at a speed of over c, or interact at a distance over c, etc.
The difficulty is that there is not necessarily any discrepancy with natural laws. In the case of our Christian hearing the Voice of God and assuming the Christian is clinically sane then even with ...
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe same way you experiment on anything. And sorry to inform you, but it is called 'natural science' to distinguish it from other branches of - guess what - science.
How do you intend to do an experiment on something that is not part of nature? It's not called natural science for no reason.
And by the way, experiment is not a necessary requirement of science.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you believe it is true, but it has not been demonstrated to be true, then you rely on something other than direct observation.
Yes.
I predict you will now try your darnedest to misinterpret that to make a false claim about my beliefs.
A true scientist who only bases beliefs on what can be seen must limit belief to what can only be seen. Such a person would say "according to the theory of evolution this animal evolved over time" as opposed to "this animal evolved over time". One statement attributes the observation to the theory then other makes a statement of fact.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by humySimple yes or no.
"I believe it is the best explanation for what we observe"
generally implies
"I believe it probably/definitely is"
unless the person who is saying it is so irrational as to reject the best explanation for what we observe!
What's your problem?
Lets call that a "yes"; So .... so what of it?
It is a rational belief based on the evidence as opposed to an irrational belief not based on the evidence; what of it?
Is the theory of evolution true?
08 Dec 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Eladarevolution has been demonstrated to be true (via the evidence, obviously).
If you believe it is true, but it has not been demonstrated to be true,...
Is the theory of evolution true?
Yes, the theory of evolution is true. So what? Your point?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it does not involve experiment, things like astronomical observations being a type of experiment, then it is not science.
The same way you experiment on anything. And sorry to inform you, but it is called 'natural science' to distinguish it from other branches of - guess what - science.
And by the way, experiment is not a necessary requirement of science.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyMy point is that you base that belief on the assumption God does not exist.
evolution has been demonstrated to be true (via the evidence, obviously).Is the theory of evolution true?
Yes, the theory of evolution is true. So what? Your point?
In a court case we assume that God did not intervene because the world as we know it works according to nature. That is what we observe. Court cases deal with people who are not supernatural.
As I said earlier, the existence of our universe does not make sense according to natural laws. Everything has a beginning everything is from something. Natural explanations do not fit, but you believe in them anyhow. You have faith based on an assumption.