Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, one question remaining to be answered, is why Sheldrake wanted scientists to take his assertions seriously, if he purportedly knew that his assertions were untestable in the first place. In which case, his whinge about the scientific method makes even less sense.

Well, it looks as if you've decided that Sheldrake really-o, truly-o wanted scientists to take his ideas seriously, and that might be the case, because he might just be one of those folks who, like Mr.Samsa, can't bear to throw something away. Hoarding is not an uncommon human behaviour, and it doesn't just affect people who fill their house from top to bottom with old newspapers.

in reply to the above, the entire aetiology makes sense on the basis of past evidence of similar cases. Namely, people wanting their ideas to be taken seriously, having said ideas dismissed as mere speculation and fantasy by other people operating within a framework of at least minimum evidential standards, then responding to said dismissal by throwing a strop, and claiming that those people are "narrow minded" or "limited", and that said evidential standards purportedly don't apply. Yet, whilst doing so, still seeking the respectability of having those ideas regarded as being as robust as other ideas that have been subject to those evidential standards, and passed the requisite tests. It's something we see frequently from creationists, for example, who want their fantasies to be treated as fact, want entire swathes of valid science to be tossed into the bin to make way for those fantasies, yet still seek, via the treatment of science as a branch of apologetics, to attach the "scientific" label to said fantasies.

Calilasseia wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, one question remaining to be answered, is why Sheldrake wanted scientists to take his assertions seriously, if he purportedly knew that his assertions were untestable in the first place. In which case, his whinge about the scientific method makes even less sense.

Well, it looks as if you've decided that Sheldrake really-o, truly-o wanted scientists to take his ideas seriously, and that might be the case, because he might just be one of those folks who, like Mr.Samsa, can't bear to throw something away. Hoarding is not an uncommon human behaviour, and it doesn't just affect people who fill their house from top to bottom with old newspapers.

in reply to the above, the entire aetiology makes sense on the basis of past evidence of similar cases. Namely, people wanting their ideas to be taken seriously, having said ideas dismissed as mere speculation and fantasy by other people operating within a framework of at least minimum evidential standards, then responding to said dismissal by throwing a strop, and claiming that those people are "narrow minded" or "limited", and that said evidential standards purportedly don't apply. Yet, whilst doing so, still seeking the respectability of having those ideas regarded as being as robust as other ideas that have been subject to those evidential standards, and passed the requisite tests. It's something we see frequently from creationists, for example, who want their fantasies to be treated as fact, want entire swathes of valid science to be tossed into the bin to make way for those fantasies, yet still seek, via the treatment of science as a branch of apologetics, to attach the "scientific" label to said fantasies.

Well, I've nothing with which to disagree there, and can only commend you on to our esteemed friend and colleague Mr.Samsa, who recommends that we keep such shit around because, wait for it... it produces the possibility of 'great counter arguments'. Counter-arguments to woo are vacuous, when (as you frequently urge) we can employ the labour-saving tactic of waiting for evidence. Demanding evidence, of course, is doomed to be labeled 'strident', or something. Samsa's not waiting for evidence; on with the debate, or (as you might say) shooting fish in a barrel. Samsa, of course, will tell you (and me, if I were listening) that asking evidence for the supernatural is irrational (or some other epithet, like 'incoherent').

At it's base, the scientific method is a tool for studying phenomena. The only tool, incidentally, that human beings have found to consistently produce reliable results.

Someone complaining about the "limitations" of the scientific method will invariably be discovered to have a dearth of phenomena to study.

Cito di Pense wrote:...
Counter-arguments to woo are vacuous, when (as you frequently urge) we can employ the labour-saving tactic of waiting for evidence.
...

Insufficient! Woo (when it is known to be such, through contradictions with known science) needs to be exposed as such. If we simply wait for non-existent evidence, then, in effect, the woo is being allowed to pass, as if it was science. We only need to wait for evidence when it might not be woo at all, ie, when it is consistent with the known facts.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You've asserted that Sheldrake's ideas are worth keeping visible,

And if I ask you to quote me saying anything even resembling that, would you find me a quote or will you go on another postmodernist rant about how truth is relative or something?

Mr.Samsa wrote:It's just that he's a scientist with some kooky ideas.

That might be right?

What? How does that support the claim that his ideas are worth visible? I claimed that he fits the criteria for the label 'scientist' and that somehow means everything he says should be visible?

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

No, who the fuck thinks that?

Cito di Pense wrote:Your history in these sorts of topics is that of not ruling anything out.

I'd ask if you can find any evidence of that but given your last attempt above I fear that your response will be even more bizarre and irrelevant than usual.

Cito di Pense wrote:When you call ideas 'kooky', it's not as if you're dismissing them summarily. You know you can't get much mileage here by explicitly stating that you don't want these ideas dismissed because there might be something to them. So, off to the negative dialectic with you, sir.

In other words, you're just going to keep making shit up because you don't want to admit you're wrong? Why would I think there might be something to them? What makes you think that I would think that? Is there any kind of reasoning going on here?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, one question remaining to be answered, is why Sheldrake wanted scientists to take his assertions seriously, if he purportedly knew that his assertions were untestable in the first place. In which case, his whinge about the scientific method makes even less sense.

Well, it looks as if you've decided that Sheldrake really-o, truly-o wanted scientists to take his ideas seriously, and that might be the case, because he might just be one of those folks who, like Mr.Samsa, can't bear to throw something away. Hoarding and fetish is not an uncommon human behaviour, and it doesn't just affect people who fill their house from top to bottom with old newspapers or keep a letter written by an old flame.

More claims without evidence. You're good at this!

Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, I've nothing with which to disagree there, and can only commend you on to our esteemed friend and colleague Mr.Samsa, who recommends that we keep such shit around because, wait for it... it produces the possibility of 'great counter arguments'.

It's funny that you repeat this claim despite me asking for evidence of me holding that position and you spectacularly failing to provide any....

Cito di Pense wrote:Counter-arguments to woo are vacuous, when (as you frequently urge) we can employ the labour-saving tactic of waiting for evidence.

Demanding evidence is a counterargument...

Cito di Pense wrote:Demanding evidence, of course, is doomed to be labeled 'strident', or something.

Why would it be "strident"? Any reason for thinking that is that just more shit pulled from your ass?

Demanding evidence is a great position to take; for example, remember when I asked you for evidence about the claims you were making about me on the last page and you failed to do so? That's an easy, efficient, and comprehensive way of proving that there is no basis to your claims.

Cito di Pense wrote:Samsa's not waiting for evidence; on with the debate, or (as you might say) shooting fish in a barrel. Samsa, of course, will tell you (and me, if I were listening) that asking evidence for the supernatural is irrational (or some other epithet, like 'incoherent').

Asking for empirical or natural evidence of the supernatural is indeed irrational and incoherent, by definition. That doesn't have much relevance here as, from what I can see, Sheldrake isn't arguing for supernatural concepts.

Nicko wrote:At it's base, the scientific method is a tool for studying phenomena. The only tool, incidentally, that human beings have found to consistently produce reliable results.

Someone complaining about the "limitations" of the scientific method will invariably be discovered to have a dearth of phenomena to study.

And when that person is making the argument that science should study more than just phenomena?

Wow, considering the protagonists in this current spat, the irony is, well, breath taking



Maybe antagonists might be the better word

Templeton wrote:Wow, considering the protagonists in this current spat, the irony is, well, breath taking

The irony like raaaiiin on your wedding day? Or actual irony?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

No, who the fuck thinks that?

You do, Mr.Samsa:

Nobody has claimed anything "definitive" but the point is that it tells us what kinds of conclusions we can draw from empirical evidence alone (i.e. not much if anything), it tells us that making certain assumptions in science (e.g. ignoring the supernatural) means that its ability to describe reality is limited, it tells us that the scientific practice of simultaneously accepting contradicting theories makes it difficult to treat science as a description of reality, etc etc.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... l#p1569210

Saying that you personally don't believe in supernatural entities doesn't mean that you rule out supernatural entities as being part of reality,. You can't rule it out, and I can, since I recognise it as an idea inherited from pre-scientific goat-roasters whose crude mistakes have no metaphysical import.

If you do rule it out, please forgive my misunderstandings of the tortuous wibble you spew while failing to avoid having any of it stick to you.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:At it's base, the scientific method is a tool for studying phenomena. The only tool, incidentally, that human beings have found to consistently produce reliable results.

Someone complaining about the "limitations" of the scientific method will invariably be discovered to have a dearth of phenomena to study.

And when that person is making the argument that science should study more than just phenomena?

Like what?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

No, who the fuck thinks that?

You do, Mr.Samsa:

Nobody has claimed anything "definitive" but the point is that it tells us what kinds of conclusions we can draw from empirical evidence alone (i.e. not much if anything), it tells us that making certain assumptions in science (e.g. ignoring the supernatural) means that its ability to describe reality is limited, it tells us that the scientific practice of simultaneously accepting contradicting theories makes it difficult to treat science as a description of reality, etc etc.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... l#p1569210

Could you not find a quote of me saying that we can't rule out the supernatural and that's why you had to post that irrelevant comment above? Or are you trying to suggest that only science could rule out the supernatural and if someone denies that natural methods can be used to rule out the supernatural then they must be saying that the supernatural can't be ruled out?

I must assume the former because the latter is so insane that I can't in good faith attribute it to you.

Cito di Pense wrote:Saying that you personally don't believe in supernatural entities doesn't mean that you rule out supernatural entities as being part of reality,. You can't rule it out, and I can, since I recognise it as an idea inherited from pre-scientific goat-roasters whose crude mistakes have no metaphysical import.

I've done more than say I personally don't believe, I've stated that the concept of supernatural is incoherent and nonsensical which is why I've always argued against it.

Cito di Pense wrote:If you do rule it out, please forgive my misunderstandings of the tortuous wibble you spew while failing to avoid having any of it stick to you.

Cito accusing others of engaging in tortuous wibble!

I really have heard it all now. Anyway, if you can't support any of your claims about positions I supposedly hold (and now that I've successfully debunked the claims you've made), maybe you'll think twice about posting such nonsense.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:At it's base, the scientific method is a tool for studying phenomena. The only tool, incidentally, that human beings have found to consistently produce reliable results.

Someone complaining about the "limitations" of the scientific method will invariably be discovered to have a dearth of phenomena to study.

And when that person is making the argument that science should study more than just phenomena?

Like what?

Sheldrake is arguing that metaphysical claims should be tested and studied by science.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Sheldrake is arguing that metaphysical claims should be tested and studied by science.

Then he should stop whinging and study them. Construct a falsifiable hypothesis and try to falsify it.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Sheldrake is arguing that metaphysical claims should be tested and studied by science.

Then he should stop whinging and study them. Construct a falsifiable hypothesis and try to falsify it.

But that wouldn't really help him as he's saying that the scientific method is not currently capable of addressing the types of questions that he thinks it should, and you're telling him to use science to study the types of questions that he thinks science is currently incapable of addressing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

No, who the fuck thinks that?

You do, Mr.Samsa:

Nobody has claimed anything "definitive" but the point is that it tells us what kinds of conclusions we can draw from empirical evidence alone (i.e. not much if anything), it tells us that making certain assumptions in science (e.g. ignoring the supernatural) means that its ability to describe reality is limited, it tells us that the scientific practice of simultaneously accepting contradicting theories makes it difficult to treat science as a description of reality, etc etc.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... l#p1569210

Saying that you personally don't believe in supernatural entities doesn't mean that you rule out supernatural entities as being part of reality,. You can't rule it out, and I can, since I recognise it as an idea inherited from pre-scientific goat-roasters whose crude mistakes have no metaphysical import.

If you do rule it out, please forgive my misunderstandings of the tortuous wibble you spew while failing to avoid having any of it stick to you.

I don't know about you, but the most annoying things about theists is their claim to absolute knowledge that god exists. Are atheists making the same mistake by claiming that gods absolutely don't exist? I think acknowledging that we can't absolutely rule gods out is intellectually honest. How you imagine this gives any comfort at all to woo merchants is beyond me. Don't creationists claim fining a transitional fossil creates TWICE the number of gaps in the fossil record?? In other words, woo merchants will find comfort where it does not exist, and conceding that it is impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of gods is not going to matter one bit to such people.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
I don't know about you, but the most annoying things about theists is their claim to absolute knowledge that god exists. Are atheists making the same mistake by claiming that gods absolutely don't exist? I think acknowledging that we can't absolutely rule gods out is intellectually honest. How you imagine this gives any comfort at all to woo merchants is beyond me. Don't creationists claim fining a transitional fossil creates TWICE the number of gaps in the fossil record?? In other words, woo merchants will find comfort where it does not exist, and conceding that it is impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of gods is not going to matter one bit to such people.

Careful now, replying to Cito might cause him to attribute a random position to you, like saying that your comment suggests that you believe fairies exist. If you ask him why he thinks you believe that, he'll arbitrarily pick out a comment from your history about something irrelevant like an off-handed remark about your tax returns, and then he'll sit back smugly thinking he's made his point.

Trust me, I'm speaking from experience here (as evidenced by the last couple of pages of incredible misrepresentations from Cito).

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Sheldrake is arguing that metaphysical claims should be tested and studied by science.

Then he should stop whinging and study them. Construct a falsifiable hypothesis and try to falsify it.

But that wouldn't really help him as he's saying that the scientific method is not currently capable of addressing the types of questions that he thinks it should, and you're telling him to use science to study the types of questions that he thinks science is currently incapable of addressing.

So... should science address such questions and does it have the potential or capacity (or whatever the word is) to address such questions? Can science on its own address such questions or does it need to work within some broader epistemological framework?

LucidFlight wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:But that wouldn't really help him as he's saying that the scientific method is not currently capable of addressing the types of questions that he thinks it should, and you're telling him to use science to study the types of questions that he thinks science is currently incapable of addressing.

So... should science address such questions and does it have the potential or capacity (or whatever the word is) to address such questions? Can science on its own address such questions or does it need to work within some broader epistemological framework?

I haven't read enough of his work to know exactly what his arguments are but on the face of it it seems absurd to me, I don't see how science could tackle metaphysical questions or why we would want to change it so significantly to be able to. It seems like he's just trying to broaden the practice of science to include his areas of interest so that he can lend credence to them (e.g. "Look, science is studying these things, how can they be woo?!").

For science to deal with his questions it would have to drop its commitment to empiricism and, in doing so, I think that would seriously weaken science's ability to answer questions. That is, if we have to worry about whether there are other causes that are simply unobservable and immeasurable every time we discover something then how can we ever make any progress?

But maybe I'm misrepresenting Sheldrake so I'd be interested if anyone who has read his book could tell me if I'm on the right track or not.

Indeed. Indeed.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, aren't you the guy with the philosophical position that we can't rule out the supernatural?

No, who the fuck thinks that?

You do, Mr.Samsa:

Nobody has claimed anything "definitive" but the point is that it tells us what kinds of conclusions we can draw from empirical evidence alone (i.e. not much if anything), it tells us that making certain assumptions in science (e.g. ignoring the supernatural) means that its ability to describe reality is limited, it tells us that the scientific practice of simultaneously accepting contradicting theories makes it difficult to treat science as a description of reality, etc etc.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... l#p1569210

Saying that you personally don't believe in supernatural entities doesn't mean that you rule out supernatural entities as being part of reality,. You can't rule it out, and I can, since I recognise it as an idea inherited from pre-scientific goat-roasters whose crude mistakes have no metaphysical import.

If you do rule it out, please forgive my misunderstandings of the tortuous wibble you spew while failing to avoid having any of it stick to you.

I don't know about you, but the most annoying things about theists is their claim to absolute knowledge that god exists. Are atheists making the same mistake by claiming that gods absolutely don't exist? I think acknowledging that we can't absolutely rule gods out is intellectually honest. How you imagine this gives any comfort at all to woo merchants is beyond me. Don't creationists claim fining a transitional fossil creates TWICE the number of gaps in the fossil record?? In other words, woo merchants will find comfort where it does not exist, and conceding that it is impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of gods is not going to matter one bit to such people.

Yes, I thought all atheists knew you can't rule out the supernatural, including gods. It's nothing controversial or anything and it doesn't mean you believe it in it, science just can't rule it out. I'm surprised Cito, got thumbs up, maybe it was for the other parts of his posts (though it was full of misrepresentation, so I can't for the life of my figure it out). I suppose I do understand wanting and thinking you're 100 percent right.

LucidFlight wrote:Indeed. Indeed.

I found this.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Saying that you personally don't believe in supernatural entities doesn't mean that you rule out supernatural entities as being part of reality,. You can't rule it out, and I can, since I recognise it as an idea inherited from pre-scientific goat-roasters whose crude mistakes have no metaphysical import.

I don't know about you, but the most annoying things about theists is their claim to absolute knowledge that god exists. Are atheists making the same mistake by claiming that gods absolutely don't exist? I think acknowledging that we can't absolutely rule gods out is intellectually honest. How you imagine this gives any comfort at all to woo merchants is beyond me. Don't creationists claim fining a transitional fossil creates TWICE the number of gaps in the fossil record?? In other words, woo merchants will find comfort where it does not exist, and conceding that it is impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of gods is not going to matter one bit to such people.

I am citing the evidence I use to dismiss the concept of 'deities'. Why are you happy to infer the transitional fossils you've not seen in any museum when arguing with creotards, and yet remain steadfastly unable to infer the transitional fossils of woo belief systems that propose 'deities'? The only other argument you can make is that of the noble savage, but that's an argument for you to make, not me.

The other thing that's going on here is that the local RatSkep cultchah is heavily into the 'weak atheism' paradigm, the 'lack of belief' in deities rather than outright rejection of the entire concept, which is more work. Conforming to local norms as opposed to working harder? Yeah, I've seen that one, too.