23 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWithout a presupposition, there is nothing to test or prove. Science works on the basis of making a presupposition, testing it for validity, and if it fails the test, try a new presupposition. When one succeeds sufficient testing, it becomes a theory, and worthy of teaching others.
So science cannot prove a presupposition?
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnyone can ask questions, but if the intent is to dupe someone into saying something that can be taken out of context to justify one of your opinions, then it's not surprising that a lot of people are not answering.
So science cannot prove a presupposition?
I suggest you just say what your point is and argue it, what's the point of playing the question game?
23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaCome on, take a bite at it!
Anyone can ask questions, but if the intent is to dupe someone into saying something that can be taken out of context to justify one of your opinions, then it's not surprising that a lot of people are not answering.
I suggest you just say what your point is and argue it, what's the point of playing the question game?
Can "Science" be neutral? Theoretically, it can, but practically almost never. Most "science" today starts with the assumption that there is a natural explanation for all observations, and supernatural explanations must not be considered. Thus any action of a divine or supernatural being will always be attributed to natural (empirical) cause.
Any science that assumes the "natural" presupposition is not neutral, but is antithetical to the reality of the divine - a critical (sometimes fatal) flaw.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by ColettiScience is but a tool. The hand that yields it is another matter and definitely not neutral.
Come on, take a bite at it!
Can "Science" be neutral? Theoretically, it can, but practically almost never. Most "science" today starts with the assumption that there is a natural explanation for all observations, and supernatural explanations must not be considered. Thus any action of a divine or supernatural being will always be attributed to natu ...[text shortened]... t neutral, but is antithetical to the reality of the divine - a critical (sometimes fatal) flaw.
"Scientists" (I dislike the word, I don't know why but my knowledge of English is probably to blame for not being able to find one that I feel comfortable with) are obviously partial, because it's their vision of the world that pushes science forward. When a scientist tests an hypothesis, he is obviously testing it because he feels it could be right or he wouldn't be testing it.
I agree that even the most open-minded 'scientist' doesn't test hypothesis at random, but there is a much larger mass of other scientists that analyse findings, reducing the overall risk of abuse of position.
As for the supernatural, I believe Science, by definition, cannot consider what cannot be tested, so Science will definitely only reduce the supernatural. When it is able to explain something considered supernatural, then that something is considered natural. It is not a bias, it is a consequence of the definitions of natural/supernatural.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaOnly by the defining science to says it deal exclusively with natural explanations. But this definition of science has a built in presupposition that is unjustified.
...
As for the supernatural, I believe Science, by definition, cannot consider what cannot be tested, so Science will definitely only reduce the supernatural. When it is able to explain something considered supernatural, then that something is considered natural. It is not a bias, it is a consequence of the definitions of natural/supernatural.
How does one justify the presumption that there is a dichotomy between natural and supernatural. I believe they are inextricably connected.
Second: the supernatural explanations can be tested. After all, it is the observable events that are being explained.
Science does not need to be defined to limit it's scope to natural explanations. While it may be the case that most phenomena have natural causes - that does not mean we need place an artificial limit on science.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by ColettiWe need to get this out of the way before we continue.
Only by the defining science to says it deal exclusively with natural explanations. But this definition of science has a built in presupposition that is unjustified.
How does one justify the presumption that there is a dichotomy between natural and supernatural. I believe they are inextricably connected.
Second: the supernatural explanations can ...[text shortened]... phenomena have natural causes - that does not mean we need place an artificial limit on science.
How do you define supernatural?
I propose we start with Wikipedia's definition as the base and try to reach one we both agree upon:
Supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) forces and phenomena which are beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings.
Feel free to add/criticize anything contained in such a definition (or accept it), for discussion.
23 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaMy only problem with this definition is why must the supernatural be limited to those things which can not be explained naturally? Do you see what I am saying? By this definition, a phenomena is natural if it can be explained by natural causes. What if the natural is a subset of the supernatural?
We need to get this out of the way before we continue.
How do you define supernatural?
I propose we start with Wikipedia's definition as the base and try to reach one we both agree upon:
[b]Supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) forces and phenomena which are beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, and which may . ...[text shortened]... el free to add/criticize anything contained in such a definition (or accept it), for discussion.[/b]
The initial cause of the natural is supernatural. Maybe the supernatural is the glue that holds the natural together - gives order to the natural world. Maybe natural and supernatural are not distinguishable - we only assume they are.
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by ColettiI understand your arguments, but I think you are claiming the supernatural and the natural are connected so you can attribute natural characteristics to the supernatural.
My only problem with this definition is why must the supernatural be limited to those things which can not be explained naturally? Do you see what I am saying? By this definition, a phenomena is natural if it can be explained by natural causes. What if the natural is a subset of the supernatural?
The initial cause of the natural is supernatural. ...[text shortened]... atural world. Maybe natural and supernatural are not distinguishable - we only assume they are.
Supernatural is, by definition (super+natural), not natural. And what is natural? If you could explain that "glue" with science, wouldn't that "glue" be considered natural?
Once thunderstorms were viewed as supernatural, now they are viewed as natural. Natural/supernatural are not different things in themselves, but simply "what is explainable by science"/"what is not explainable by science".
Even if you define supernatural as "that which can never be considered natural" (making it more consistent with an approach to "divine" ) then it would also fall on the "is not explainable by science" category.
A bit unelegantly explained, but I hope my opinion is correctly understood...
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaWhy should science raise the "unknown" to the degree of certainty of the known?
I understand your arguments, but I think you are claiming the supernatural and the natural are connected so you can attribute natural characteristics to the supernatural.
Supernatural is, by definition (super+natural), not natural. And what is natural? If you could explain that "glue" with science, wouldn't that "glue" be considered natural?
Once ...[text shortened]... nce" category.
A bit unelegantly explained, but I hope my opinion is correctly understood...
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo, they are, by definition, distinguished. Supernatural simply refers to things we cannot explain. At one point, thunder and lightning were supernatural phenomena; once we understood what caused them, they became natural phenomena. How did we come to understand them? Not by testing theories of a spirit of the wind or a thunder god, but rather by working our way painstakingly from the knowledge we had already garnered and taking it step by step so that we could be sure of what we were learning. If a creator exists, and we knew this without question, that creator would not be supernatural. If we understood how the things that creator did worked, then the creator's actions would not be supernatural. It is merely that they are beyond our understanding that the term supernatural applies.
Maybe natural and supernatural are not distinguishable - we only assume they are.
Consider the "magic" of flying; if someone from the 12th century were to experience a modern jet, they would consider it great sorcery indeed, unless and until you explained it all to them (and then, since they likely would have a very hard time understanding how air and the vacuum created by the wings could ever support anything, they would probably still consider it "magic"😉
23 Aug 05
Originally posted by Palynka"the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
Please explain your point. The question game is pointless and leads to incessant questioning from both sides.
the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.
Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
Most of the "evidence" for spirits ( of any kind ) are only "observations" and science needs data to raise the degree of certainty of any hypothesis drawn on these observations.
What I see in this and other threads from some religious people is their idea that science should use the existence of God as The First LAW.
in earlier post I was asking if that was what you had meant.