Spiritism

Sofista · **#21** by **Sofista** » Jul 15, 2019 2:44 pm

The importance of recognizing the limits of the scientific method, which prevents experimental science from dealing with non-quantifiable realities.One of the most difficult tests for a scientific mind is to know the limits of the scientific method.The limits of science are fixed by your own scientific method!

blindfaith · **#22** by **blindfaith** » Jul 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Sofista wrote:
Alan B wrote:Please provide evidence for the existence of 'Spiritism' and 'Life after Death' without using the strictly mathematical term 'proof'.

Please also avoid using the 'Ancient Manuscript' or 'hearsay' approach.

For Pseudo-Skeptics, reliable evidence must be measurable in some conventional way and reproduced at our disposal. The problem with that is that what we can measure is still limited to our level of technology.

what level of technology is needed to detect your spirit?

Fenrir · **#23** by **Fenrir** » Jul 15, 2019 2:47 pm

Sofista wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Sofista wrote:The Scientific Method still can not prove the existence of the spirits and the life after the death !!

Smcientific ethod can't prove anything whatsoever, in much the same way that mathematics can't make coffee, or meditation do the gardening for you.

That's because it's a category mistake, an absence of understanding of what science entails.

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. So all you're really saying is that there is an absence of evidence for spirits and life after death, therefore science has no purchase on such claims, and thus they remain belief-statements.

It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven.This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered.

That's absolute bullshit.

What's rational is to provisionally accept that which the available evidence suggests is the more likely. Sceptisism is simply not accepting claims without credible supporting evidence.

Hint: the supernatural fails at every hurdle.

scott1328 · **#24** by **scott1328** » Jul 15, 2019 2:48 pm

Sofista wrote:The importance of recognizing the limits of the scientific method, which prevents experimental science from dealing with non-quantifiable realities.One of the most difficult tests for a scientific mind is to know the limits of the scientific method.The limits of science are fixed by your own scientific method!

It seems you're the only one who does not recognize the limits of the scientific method, since you are the only one making straw-man claims about it.

Can't you JAQ off in private?

Sendraks · **#25** by **Sendraks** » Jul 15, 2019 2:48 pm

Sofista wrote:
However, science doesn't waste time entertaining nonsense that a) cannot be tested for b) cannot be defined.

All you're doing is engaging in special pleading.

Science knows it doesn't know everything, if it did, it would stop.

However, science doesn't waste time entertaining nonsense that a) cannot be tested for b) cannot be defined.

All you're doing is engaging in special pleading. There's no reason for anyone to take spritiual nonsense seriously.

Sofista · **#26** by **Sofista** » Jul 15, 2019 3:03 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Sofista wrote:
However, science doesn't waste time entertaining nonsense that a) cannot be tested for b) cannot be defined.

All you're doing is engaging in special pleading.

Science knows it doesn't know everything, if it did, it would stop.

However, science doesn't waste time entertaining nonsense that a) cannot be tested for b) cannot be defined.

All you're doing is engaging in special pleading. There's no reason for anyone to take spritiual nonsense seriously.

Then prove that spirits do not exist? Inversion of the burden of proof is a pseudo-skeptic argument !!
In his analysis, Marcello Truzzi argued that the pseudo-skeptics present the following conduct:

The tendency to deny, rather than to doubt.
The making of judgments without a thorough and conclusive investigation.
Use of personal attacks.
The presentation of insufficient evidence.
The attempt to disqualify proponents of new ideas by calling them pejoratively 'pseudo-scientists', 'promoters' or 'practitioners of pathological science'.
The presentation of counter-evidence not substantiated or based only on plausibility, rather than based on evidence.
The suggestion that unconvincing evidence is sufficient to assume that a theory is false.
The tendency to disqualify 'any and all' evidence.

Animavore · **#27** by **Animavore** » Jul 15, 2019 3:07 pm

"Spiritism" sounds like a drunk person trying to say "spiritualism".

Sendraks · **#28** by **Sendraks** » Jul 15, 2019 3:09 pm

Sofista wrote:Then prove that spirits do not exist? Inversion of the burden of proof is a pseudo-skeptic argument !!

The burden of proof rests with those claiming that something does exist. Either you prove they can or GTFO.
There's no obligation on me or anyone else to disprove the existence of something you yourself cannot prove the existence of.

Sofista wrote:In his analysis, Marcello Truzzi argued that the pseudo-skeptics present the following conduct:

The tendency to deny, rather than to doubt.
The making of judgments without a thorough and conclusive investigation.
Use of personal attacks.
The presentation of insufficient evidence.
The attempt to disqualify proponents of new ideas by calling them pejoratively 'pseudo-scientists', 'promoters' or 'practitioners of pathological science'.
The presentation of counter-evidence not substantiated or based only on plausibility, rather than based on evidence.
The suggestion that unconvincing evidence is sufficient to assume that a theory is false.
The tendency to disqualify 'any and all' evidence.

Yes, its hardly a complimentary list. Do you identify with much of it?

Sofista · **#29** by **Sofista** » Jul 15, 2019 3:13 pm

Animavore wrote:"Spiritism" sounds like a drunk person trying to say "spiritualism".

Marcello Truzzi popularized the term pseudoskepticism in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.

Sendraks · **#30** by **Sendraks** » Jul 15, 2019 3:16 pm

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

Animavore · **#31** by **Animavore** » Jul 15, 2019 3:18 pm

Sofista wrote:
Animavore wrote:"Spiritism" sounds like a drunk person trying to say "spiritualism".

Marcello Truzzi popularized the term pseudoskepticism in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.

Thomas Byrne popularised the term pseudopseudoskepticism in response to pseudoskeptics who, in his opinion, made positive claims on negative claims without bearing the burden of proof on those positive, negative claims.

Sofista · **#32** by **Sofista** » Jul 15, 2019 3:53 pm

Empirical limits in science
A deep-rooted opinion, which appears today as if it were quite self-evident, is that Science has to supply man with knowledge, and that he cannot expect knowledge from any other province of life. .... Science separates us and the objects far from each other, while it teaches us to view the objects in their own connections." So wrote Rudolf Eucken in 1913
In philosophy of science, the empirical limits of science define problems with observation, and thus are limits of human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena. These include topics such as infinity, the future and god.In the 20th century several of these were well-documented or proposed in physics:

The Planck length - actually a limit on distance itself.
Schrödinger's cat paradox.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The theorized event horizon of a black hole in special relativity.
The cosmological horizon of the observable universe.

Sendraks · **#33** by **Sendraks** » Jul 15, 2019 3:57 pm

Yes, and?

Svartalf · **#34** by **Svartalf** » Jul 15, 2019 4:00 pm

Beside the fact that spiritism is pure bunk, effected by skilled manipulators, believing anything advanced by a guy going as Sofista is going to lead one astray from the Path of Reason.

Spearthrower · **#35** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 15, 2019 4:05 pm

Sofista wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Sofista wrote:The Scientific Method still can not prove the existence of the spirits and the life after the death !!

Smcientific ethod can't prove anything whatsoever, in much the same way that mathematics can't make coffee, or meditation do the gardening for you.

That's because it's a category mistake, an absence of understanding of what science entails.

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. So all you're really saying is that there is an absence of evidence for spirits and life after death, therefore science has no purchase on such claims, and thus they remain belief-statements.

It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven.

This may well be a language barrier issue, but the notion of 'proof' is not something that can simply be tossed at a phenomenon in the expectation of it sticking. Proof is a must, from which there can be no exceptions. Unless you possess all the possible data, and know beyond any doubt that you possess all the data, then you don't have proof - you just have a lot of evidence.

While it's obviously important that you amend the presentation of your ideas so that they concur better with what you're trying to communicate, I will engage the principle of charity here and understand your usage of the word 'proof' to mean 'very well evidenced'.

Secondly, of course it's not irrational to believe something that hasn't been very well evidenced. I have no evidence of tomorrow, yet I can hold a belief with very high confidence that the sun will apparently rise in the morning. This is not irrational, rather it is inductive logic; the extrapolation of past events and the continuation of the rules under which those events occurred continuing to operate tomorrow and in the future, and of course, logic is a rational pursuit. Alternatively, I can hold a belief in values which I can reason as being desirable even if I were unable to show them as tangible.

So I think your contention is untenable and poorly conceived. It is not irrational to believe anything for which there is no evidence; it is only irrational to believe in the existence of entities or phenomena which are not evident.

Sofista wrote:This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments.

That is, of course, a strawman argument. You are supposedly unaware of what pseudoskepticism is given your other thread, but here you are formulating arguments against pseudoskepticism as if all skepticism were pseudoskepticism.

Obviously, you don't get to play both prosecutor and defense; if you wish to do so, there are platforms known as 'blogs' for just such a desire for decree. This, you will note, is a discussion forum, so if you wish to discuss then you will allow other people to frame the counter-arguments.

Sofista wrote: just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

Fantastic, so now you're knocking down your strawman. Bravo!

Given your apparent unfamiliarity with any of the appropriate usage of terminology from logic or epistemology, it might be ideal if you perhaps spent a little longer processing responses to your questions before attempting to frame those responses yourself.

Your first hurdle will be to learn and learn well why proof is not within the remit of science.

Regardless, if there is no evidence for a postulated entity or phenomenon, then the skeptical question is to ask on what grounds it is being postulated. Obviously something made up is neither true nor false; it's just made up.

Sofista wrote: If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered.

I'm afraid you cannot expect everyone else to join you in your misapplication of terminology and it is rather your obligation to understand and use words appropriately.

Spearthrower · **#36** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 15, 2019 4:08 pm

Sofista wrote:The importance of recognizing the limits of the scientific method, which prevents experimental science from dealing with non-quantifiable realities.

Asserted realities, you mean.

Sophist was certainly an appropriately chosen self-appellation.

Sofista wrote:One of the most difficult tests for a scientific mind is to know the limits of the scientific method.

The kind of thing a person who knows nothing about scientific method is likely to say.

Sofista wrote:The limits of science are fixed by your own scientific method!

Goodness me! Never! You don't say! Are you trying to say that scientific method is methodological naturalism???? Wow! It's not like anyone in the history of science or the history of the philosophy of science has ever alighted on that amazing concept before! :roll:

Spearthrower · **#37** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 15, 2019 4:10 pm

Sofista wrote:Empirical limits in science
A deep-rooted opinion, which appears today as if it were quite self-evident, is that Science has to supply man with knowledge, and that he cannot expect knowledge from any other province of life. .... Science separates us and the objects far from each other, while it teaches us to view the objects in their own connections." So wrote Rudolf Eucken in 1913
In philosophy of science, the empirical limits of science define problems with observation, and thus are limits of human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena. These include topics such as infinity, the future and god.In the 20th century several of these were well-documented or proposed in physics:

The Planck length - actually a limit on distance itself.
Schrödinger's cat paradox.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The theorized event horizon of a black hole in special relativity.
The cosmological horizon of the observable universe.

Otherwise known as plundering wikipedia for an opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical ... in_science

Spearthrower · **#38** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 15, 2019 4:13 pm

It'd be grand to know who this is a sockpuppet of from this forum; I know this guy from other webfora and would recognize his posts immediately in the future.

Alan B · **#39** by **Alan B** » Jul 15, 2019 4:19 pm

blindfaith wrote:what level of technology is needed to detect your spirit?

Glass-blowing... :drunk:

newolder · **#40** by **newolder** » Jul 15, 2019 4:39 pm

blindfaith wrote:...

what level of technology is needed to detect your spirit?

Spirit level.

Duffle coat toggled...

Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Re: Spiritism

Who is online