Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:Try this. If you were wandering along one day and encountered something completely outside your experience, upon what basis would you decide if the thing was "physical" or "non-physical"?

I'm not sure such a thing even makes sense to talk about but your comment presupposes that such things can exist which is unnecessary. All you need to recognise is that there is a distinction in concepts, not that such concepts are even possible.

In other words, if I create a method of identifying animals which specifically adopts an axiom which says that it can only detect observable blue creatures, then before we even begin an investigation I can say that a limitation of my method is that even if invisible pink unicorns existed, my method would not be able to detect them. It doesn't matter if invisible pink unicorns existed, it doesn't even matter if it's a coherent concept. All that matters is that if they did somehow exist then my method has no means in which they could identify them.

The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Mr.Samsa wrote:

newolder wrote:

To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

The author common to both studies (Roe) changed their mind in light of improved experiment. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Are we basing scientific conclusions on opinions and personal positions now?...

Mr.Samsa wrote:Sorry, no idea what you're trying to say here. I recognise the words but they make no sense in the order you've randomly thrown them at the screen in.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Physical things are those with physical dimensions, like mass, height, length, etc, and they are usually observable. Non-physical things are usually defined as being the opposite, as in having no material basis.

So what makes mass, height etc "physical"?

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:What non=physical things are there which have no physical basis?

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
I'm not sure such a thing even makes sense to talk about but your comment presupposes that such things can exist which is unnecessary. All you need to recognise is that there is a distinction in concepts, not that such concepts are even possible.

In other words, if I create a method of identifying animals which specifically adopts an axiom which says that it can only detect observable blue creatures, then before we even begin an investigation I can say that a limitation of my method is that even if invisible pink unicorns existed, my method would not be able to detect them. It doesn't matter if invisible pink unicorns existed, it doesn't even matter if it's a coherent concept. All that matters is that if they did somehow exist then my method has no means in which they could identify them.

The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

If you have no basis for distinguishing between "physical/natural/material" things and "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual" things, then you have no basis for asserting that the stuff Sheldrake claims to want to study belongs to the latter "category". As a result of this, you have no basis for declaring that the stuff he claims to want to study cannot be investigated using the scientific method.

Nicko wrote:The other problem for what you are asserting here of course is that the scientific method per se makes no distinction as to whether the subject of inquiry is "physical/natural/material" or "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual".

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

newolder wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Are we basing scientific conclusions on opinions and personal positions now?...

That reads like a question because it has a question mark near the end but really, I leave it to you to discuss it further with yourself, if you want.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
And that is your choice, but words and concepts don't just disappear if you close your eyes tightly enough.

You know very well that is not the basis upon which I reject a profound distinction between "physical/natural/material" things and "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual" things. In case you had genuinely forgotten the previous instances where I have made my position clear, I've already linked to an article that explains the problems with proposing such a profound distinction.

It's not possible to reject a distinction between the two concepts and still be saying something meaningful.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Things like incorporeal souls, disembodied minds, and supernatural gods would be non-physical things.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
He is just into his usual rant about us all being closet wooists, pay him no mind.

Where'd ya get your concept of 'supernatural', DB? Name your sources! Surely it wasn't Rupert Sheldrake!

Oh, OK. I get it. Unsourced and private references have metaphysical weight. You go, DB!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
It's not possible to reject a distinction between the two concepts and still be saying something meaningful.

Naturally enough (no pun intended) -- for you, because then it can be used to cling to the supernatural somehow, after discovering it's meaningless on its own. The ignorant goat-roasters thought it was meaningful. In their ignorance.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
It's not possible to reject a distinction between the two concepts and still be saying something meaningful.

Naturally enough (no pun intended) -- for you, because then it can be used to cling to the supernatural somehow, after discovering it's meaningless on its own. The ignorant goat-roasters thought it was meaningful. In their ignorance.

Given that I reject the supernatural, your explanation makes no sense. Your responses are becoming more and more bizarre but, then again, ignorant goat roasters said bizarre things as well - coincidence?! I don't know, that was just a random connection of words parodying the ridiculousness of your attempting at making arguments.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
He is just into his usual rant about us all being closet wooists, pay him no mind.

Where'd ya get your concept of 'supernatural', DB? Name your sources! Surely it wasn't Rupert Sheldrake!

Oh, OK. I get it. Unsourced and private references have metaphysical weight. You go, DB!

I don't actually like the word supernatural, or the concept behind it. I may use it casually for some woo shit. There is some shit that at present flies under the radar of science, and possibly some shit that might forever be out of the reach of science. But that in no way implies that I subscribe to the retarded "mystery therefore god" idea. For reasons unknown, you keeping pushing out these barrels of shit.
I have commented on some explorations into non-religious, non-god, and non-supernatural metaphysics. As far as I am aware, these comments were based on science [but not science] or other types of rational thought, such as debunking the properties of god[s] [like the stupidity of the four "omnis"]. With such things in mind, I have claimed that there are probably no gods [or fairies of whatever], and claimed this to be reason and evidence-based metaphysics.
And once again, do this because I think it requires omniscience to absolutely disprove gods. [and fairies etc]. MY GUT feeling is that gods, fairies etc etc are only extant in the minds of the gullible and wistful. I fail to see how any of this is objectionable unless it is over some minor point of semantics. And in any case I could not give a flying fuck about your inane delusions about what I actually think.
ARE WE CLEAR?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:If you have no basis for distinguishing between "physical/natural/material" things and "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual" things, then you have no basis for asserting that the stuff Sheldrake claims to want to study belongs to the latter "category". As a result of this, you have no basis for declaring that the stuff he claims to want to study cannot be investigated using the scientific method.

I've given you a basis for distinguishing it so there's no problem there.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:The other problem for what you are asserting here of course is that the scientific method per se makes no distinction as to whether the subject of inquiry is "physical/natural/material" or "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual".

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

...Firstly, wow using wikipedia to define science.

Karl Popper wrote:One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Secondly, your own source contradicts you.

Mr.Samsa wrote:What did you think this bit meant: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence"?

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

I've given you a basis for distinguishing it so there's no problem there.

Can you point out where in that rambling word salad you posted was a basis for distinguishing between the "natural" and "supernatural"? All I got out of it was an admission that you have no idea how to - even theoretically - make such a distinction.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
...Firstly, wow using wikipedia to define science.

It's one more definition that you have provided.

Nicko wrote:Here's a more scholarly one.

Karl Popper wrote:One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Oh look, nothing about whether or not the theory proposes a "natural" or "supernatural" explanation.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Secondly, your own source contradicts you.

Nope.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:What did you think this bit meant: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence"?

That one must be able to perceive and quantify the evidence of the phenomenon being investigated. I really don't understand why you think that this requires one to take a position on whether the cause of the phenomenon is "supernatural" or not.

Matt_B wrote:"Physical" = anything we can measure.
"Non-physical" = everything else.

And if you can't measure it, it has no place in science. Indeed, you're pretty safe in assuming that it doesn't even exist at all, at least with your methodological hats on.

Mr.Samsa wrote:...

Physical things are those with physical dimensions, like mass, height, length, etc, and they are usually observable. Non-physical things are usually defined as being the opposite, as in having no material basis...

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:Try this. If you were wandering along one day and encountered something completely outside your experience, upon what basis would you decide if the thing was "physical" or "non-physical"?

I'm not sure such a thing even makes sense to talk about but your comment presupposes that such things can exist which is unnecessary. All you need to recognise is that there is a distinction in concepts, not that such concepts are even possible.

...

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
It's not possible to reject a distinction between the two concepts and still be saying something meaningful.

Naturally enough (no pun intended) -- for you, because then it can be used to cling to the supernatural somehow, after discovering it's meaningless on its own. The ignorant goat-roasters thought it was meaningful. In their ignorance.

Given that I reject the supernatural, your explanation makes no sense.

Nicko wrote:

Matt_B wrote:"Physical" = anything we can measure.
"Non-physical" = everything else.

And if you can't measure it, it has no place in science. Indeed, you're pretty safe in assuming that it doesn't even exist at all, at least with your methodological hats on.

If - for example - telekinesis existed, would we not be able to measure how strong a particular psychic's telekinesis was? The problem is not that we could not measure the strength, reliability, range and precision of telekinetic powers - it's obvious that such experiments could be designed - it's that we can't seem to find anyone with telekinetic powers.

Nicko wrote:Also, how would one tell if it was impossible to measure something or if the attempt to measure it had merely failed? Surely, using this definition commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance?

THWOTH wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:...

Physical things are those with physical dimensions, like mass, height, length, etc, and they are usually observable. Non-physical things are usually defined as being the opposite, as in having no material basis...

Could you perhaps give an example of a thing with no physical attributes or properties?

THWOTH wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
I'm not sure such a thing even makes sense to talk about but your comment presupposes that such things can exist which is unnecessary. All you need to recognise is that there is a distinction in concepts, not that such concepts are even possible.

...

Sheldrake urges us to accept, for the sake of argument at the very least, that such things can and do exist because his contention is that morphic resonance is an actual-factual phenomenon-causing thing with no material basis. One might allow that non-material things like concepts can have (measurable) effects on the world, that certain concepts can have a phenomenoloy if you like, but Sheldrake isn't just saying this. He is saying that morphic resonance isn't even an infuencing concept but a non-material something-or-other which nonetheless has certain (as yet unidentified by science) properties and attributes and can and does have measurable effects in the material realm of humans' everyday existence.

THWOTH wrote:There's little problem in recognising the distinction in concepts here is there(?), and indeed the conceptual root of morphic resonance is that non-material things can and do exist in such a way as to have direct and infuencing effects on the material world. So the question from Nicko, about the possible basis for determining if a thing is physical or if a thing is non-physical, seems completely relevant to the matter at hand and isn't just about being able to recognise that there is a distinction in concepts.

THWOTH wrote:Sheldrake wants us to address the contention that such concepts are (at the very least) possible, and not merely conceptually distinct or distinguishable, and that science therefore must change a basic operating principle to allow (at the very least) the possibility that that which can be conceptualised can also exist as a discrete something-or-other even while it cannot (by definition) be observed, measured and tested etc.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Given that I reject the supernatural, your explanation makes no sense.

Since I know of other members here who do admit they understand what I'm saying, I don't worry much about your histrionics over what 'makes no sense' to you. I prefer to think it's an expression of envy and hostility, rather than of something that's not curable merely by means of education.

But you won't stop talking about it, which means that something about semantic distinctions is important to you. I don't call anything 'the supernatural', but I do refer to 'the construct of the supernatural'. That's a semantic distinction, right there. If you've got a linguistic theory about where constructs exist, out with it. That'll make you a structuralist of some kind, and the post-structuralists will be having your word salad for lunch.

Perhaps you think that the out-and-out woo-heads (people who don't reject the construct of the supernatural) are simply being misunderstood, and shouldn't be so hard-done-by at the hands of the bad, mean atheists. You don't reject certain other abstractions that lack referents, probably because, as with mathematics, they can be used to build stuff.

In addition, there's a door wide open for anyone who wants to do so to treat Sheldrake's song and dance as unethical, which is to 'ethical' as 'unnatural' is to 'natural'. Neither one tells you anything about what the other member of the pair signifies, and that is your primary problem with 'supernatural'. See a pattern, yet?

I don't reject Sheldrake's crap simply because of how obviously it's become his exercise in blaming other people for failures of his own wild-goose chases. We're supposed to care about people who are vulnerable to conspiracy stories and are regularly fleeced by scam artists, so we call the latter 'unethical'.

Nicko wrote:
If - for example - telekinesis existed, would we not be able to measure how strong a particular psychic's telekinesis was?

Mr.Samsa wrote:
We'd know if it was impossible to measure depending on how it is defined, like how we know that moral values can't be scientifically determined.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Nice work, Cito, you beat the shit out of that guy!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Nice work, Cito, you beat the shit out of that guy!

Have a sense of humour, Samsa? No?

Nothing new to see here, folks. Move right along.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Nice work, Cito, you beat the shit out of that guy!

Have a sense of humour, Samsa? No?

Nothing new to see here, folks. Move right along.

Huh? I'm the one making jokes and you're the one throwing a tantrum, so if one of us doesn't have a sense of humour then presumably that would be you.