Final-Fan said:
appolose, I can't seem to get a PM sent and I'm too frustrated to do any more troubleshooting. If you absolutely refuse to do this in the thread then so be it.
|
at
|
That was seriously a lot more complicated than it had to be. Let's break it back down:
You:
I posit that there can be a situation in science such that to avoid proposing a supernatural explanation would be to contradict a basic tenet of science. That tenet is: "If observed enough, it is assumed true". I posit that that contradiction would result in the discarding of science as the only logical outcome. Therefore, science must allow for the supernatural or it shall contradict itself.
Firstly, I assert that this is a confirmation of what I said:
In other posts you refer (I believe) to the idea that once a theory has been observed to be in harmony with many, many observations of phenomena, then it is assumed to be true; and you appear to be following that up with the idea that if an observation is (or observations are) made that contradict that assumption, then a supernatural cause must be ascribed because science must hold on to the assumption that it had developed.
But in any case, the bolded section is completely wrong because it is incomplete. It would be pretty accurate IMO to say that a basic tenet of science is that a theory, "if observed enough, is assumed true until and unless it is contradicted by further observation". Which shoots down your entire position. As I said in my previous post.
Furthermore, I should point out that the only thing more important to science and scientists than coming up with new theories is contradicting old ones (so as to make room for better theories, ideally thought up by themselves). So actually what you think would destroy science is actually the MISSION of scientists everywhere.
Seriously. It's true that if scientists are, say, testing air resistance on falling objects, they're probably going to be assuming gravity is constant. But these assumptions are not inviolable. If something shows that they are wrong, or partially wrong, science must and will accept that and move on and try to find an explanation.
Most importantly, again, science is about natural explanations for phenomena. Natural explanations. It does not have the capacity to look beyond the natural for explanations.
You are saying that science can be unscientific. Not so.
|
"But in any case, the bolded section is completely wrong because it is incomplete. It would be pretty accurate IMO to say that a basic tenet of science is that a theory, "if observed enough, is assumed true until and unless it is contradicted by further observation". Which shoots down your entire position. As I said in my previous post".
But that isn't my position: "Given that, you propose that I think that the 2nd observation contradicts the first. This is untrue (although, I did say that myself earlier in the debate, but the literal meaning of that is not what I mean (badly worded, in other words)): I do not think that is so". Also, in where I summarized my core argument, I still do not mention contradictory observations. I said that avoiding the supernatural as an answer would contradict a basic tenet of science. Finally, in my Rath-scenario, the two observations are not contradicting each other at all.
I'm wondering if you got my full message. Do you have the part where I say "So, then, how do I get the supernatural out of it if they don't actually contradict"? That's explicit enough to indicate that I do not regard the observations as contradictory (I'm not being sarcastic, here, I really do wonder if you got my full message)
Finally, you assert that science is about natural explanations. That says to me that either A) Scienceis defined as presupposing that all there is is thenatural, or B) that it can only ever derive the natural as explanation.
The problem I have with the first one is that that is atheistic. Should such a thing be taught in schools (atheism, I mean). With the second one, the latter half of my message is an an argument against that, and I attempt to demonstrate that it can derive the supernatural. With that demonstration you must argue (assuming you got that part of it, that is).
*No offense intended in the above message*.
|
I saw it, but to be honest I started skimming because I thought I could simplify things by pointing out that the part I quoted was FLAT OUT WRONG. I guess I was wrong when I thought that the bulk of your post hinged on that statement.
And the answer is B.
"So, then, how do I get the supernatural out of it if they don't actually contradict? By this: given that my 2nd observation involves the creation of matter, it follows that it had a means of creation (things cannot create themselves; that's illogical). And, since we've already established that things cannot physically be created, we are left with only 1 option: a non-physical creation. If the objection is raised that “Science is not supposed to conclude on the supernatural”, what then do we do? We cannot conclude that our 1st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted), unlike my previous paragraph. You could say “well, I guess science has failed this time”, what does that actually mean? That doesn't solve the contradiction. No, the only thing left (I posit) is to throw away the objection that science cannot conclude on the supernatural."
First: why can't things create themselves? That is an assumption you are making. But never mind; we'll roll with it.
Second: "We cannot conclude that our 1st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted)" (the 1st assumption being, I gather, "we've already established that things cannot physically be created".
But you DO have a counter-observation, don't you? The second observation -- the one where matter is created. If it wasn't a counter-observation, then I don't know what the hell you are talking about because the "assumption" (theory) has not been challenged!
In the case of science being tasked with finding a natural explanation (the only kind of explanation it CAN find) for the supernatural, it is doomed to never succeed -- BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW THAT unless you can somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist.
I see this is actually the assertion you DO make with the following paragraph:
"A more simple example would be this, “We constantly see matter coming into existence, and, after examining the situations from every possible angle trillions of times, exploring every corner of the universe, and having observed no physical cause for this matter's creation, we thus assume (in accordance with the tenet) that there is no physical cause for this matter's creation” Science would have to conclude like that, yes? After all, it was observed countless times that there was no physical cause. If you're saying that science says that “Only the physical exists” (which is a presupposition only), then science contradicts itself, I assert."
The problem is that, not being gods, we cannot be sure that we have actually exhausted every possibility, every hypothesis, and every idea without mathematical proof, so instead of "no physical cause" it should be "no KNOWN cause". But even if we did, science is limited in its conclusions to things that can be tested. How do you test for the supernatural? So science would have to just continue to mark it up to "no known cause" while we used process of elimination to suppose that the cause was supernatural (in the belief that our scientists had not in fact overlooked any possibility). Or we would think that perhaps true spontaneity is (naturally) possible after all! And can I presume that you are assuming that we could somehow eliminate the possibility that the matter is being "exported" from another universe? Seems pretty hard to disprove to me...
|
No, it's fine. If you're having trouble PM'ing, I'll do it out here. No personal worries, either.
In any event,
I'll explain my statement of things not being able to create themselves (not that it matters to much since you're rolling with it, but I might as well): To say "This thing created itself" would imply that it existed before it existed (otherwise, how could it create itself unless it was around to create?), which is nonsense.
Now, I will clear this part up here and now: the second observation in the scenario is not a counter-observation. A counter one (or, contradictory, whatever suits your fancy) would be "Matter can be created physically" My 2nd observation does not have "physicall" in it, so it is not contradicting it.
As for how, then, I get anything out of it,
"So, then, how do I get the supernatural out of it if they don't actually contradict? By this: given that my 2nd observation involves the creation of matter, it follows that it had a means of creation (things cannot create themselves; that's illogical). And, since we've already established that things cannot physically be created, we are left with only 1 option: a non-physical creation. If the objection is raised that “Science is not supposed to conclude on the supernatural”, what then do we do? We cannot conclude that our 1st assumption is in error, because we do not have any counter-observations at hand (otherwise, that basic tenet of “If observed enough, it is assumed true” is contradicted), unlike my previous paragraph. You could say “well, I guess science has failed this time”, what does that actually mean? That doesn't solve the contradiction. No, the only thing left (I posit) is to throw away the objection that science cannot conclude on the supernatural."
In light of my explanation of how the two observations interact, I repost this, hopefully having given the clarity lacking from my example, for it lays out my case for the deduction of the supernatural.
"BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW THAT unless you can somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist."
Fully agreed. As you note, my 2nd example moves towards that (my first one does at well, but it probably was not very clearly worded, so that may have been missed).
"The problem is that, not being gods, we cannot be sure that we have actually exhausted every possibility, every hypothesis, and every idea without mathematical proof, so instead of 'no physical cause' it should be 'no KNOWN cause'"
This is indeed true. On the other hand, it's true of all science; every last bit of whatever conclusion science comes to is inductive (of course, not that I think there are methods of proof at all, as you well know :P ). So, to say suddenly "Ah, but that's inductive!" is to blow the whistle on all of science's conclusions, and undo any assumption you have ever made using science. We have, many times, agreed that science makes assumptions on these observations. So, in the event of my example, science would, just as it does anytime else, assume that what it has observed is indeed the case.
In the event you (or anyone else, for that matter) decides to drop the idea that science does make assumptions, but merely says "Ok, if observed enough, it is likely true". Well, then, it is likely that there is a supernatural (note that this is just as much a statement of science as any other). This does not need to be tested for, because you've already tested it. For example, consider the following,
"I was hit by something. It was, likely, not a car. Therefore, it was, likely, a non-car" Saying "That which hit you is not a car" is logically equivalent to saying "That which hit you is a non-car". It follows quite nicely (I posit).
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
