How to refute the Sagan pattern in the case of the existence of spirits?

[Spearthrower]

Incidentally, and far be it from me to tell you what to do, but does your reply to my post seem to be engaging in any manner anything at all I've written? It's your thread, and your questions, but I'm not sure you're actually genuinely interested given the below... please let me know if you're not actually interested so I can save myself the time - thanks.

Hi Calderaro. Hope you don't mind me stripping your post down to reply to...

Science has limitations in its ability to investigate phenomena that are beyond its current scope.

This looks like a policy statement stating a policy of the redundant Department of Redundancy.

All things are limited by their scope. If any *thing* wasn't limited by its scope, then it wouldn't be a discernible thing in the first place.

Science's limitations are very clear and a necessary assumption of the methodology. Science is a means of investigating and understanding observable phenomena. By observable, I don't mean just 'see' - but detectable in any way by humans.

Thus, if something is not detectable by humans, science has absolutely no means, method, or capacity to do anything at all with it. Was it meant to? Was science meant to be some kind of font of cosmic wisdom? I thought it was a flawed but productive process a bunch of ground apes came up with over countless generations to gain some understanding and therefore control over the situation they find themselves in.

Critics of scientific skepticism may argue that science cannot explain everything and that there are aspects of reality that may be beyond the scope of scientific investigation, such as consciousness or spiritual experiences.

"Critics of scientific skepticism"? Could you name these people please so I understand what form this criticism is meant to take.

As far as I am aware, the only basis for criticism of "scientific skepticism" is from those who want their unevidenced beliefs to be granted equal status with scientific discoveries despite them failing to do any hard work at all in establishing that the content of their claims even exists outside a figment of their imagination.

Certainly, no honest, good faith, or knowledgeable critics of any aspect of science would forward the nonsensical contention that science thinks it can explain everything. Science is a process used to investigate the world in order to understand it.... if science practitioners thought we already knew everything... why would they be doing science in the first place? In a world with no nails, hammers have no further utility - in a world where we know everything, science is redundant.

So of course, this is merely a strawman that no serious philosopher would forward. So where are you getting this absurd strawman from, and why didn't you process how dumb it is before repeating it?

Let's talk reality, shall we?

"Spiritual experiences" absolutely can be explained by science in mechanistic terms - i.e., observed changes in brain patterns during such experiences, using fucking large magnets to induce such experiences. But science can't 'explain' anything experienced by an individual and that individual alone, even one as mundane as the experience they have while eating breakfast. Science cannot have any access to the individual experience - no one can have access to that except the individual having the experience. This is because 'experience' is not an empirical quantity, but necessarily involves an organism that can perceive and interpret events from their subjective perspective. Science is fundamentally inter-subjective, in that it relies only on shared subjective experiences which are observable by everyone, not claimed to be observed by just some.

Of course, it's easy enough to appeal to ignorance and then insert a claim into the gaps in obtainable knowledge. For example, let's imagine a scenario in which there is an extraordinarily powerful alien species which decides to make contact telepathically with me. Let's say that these aliens are empirically real creatures that we could physically meet where we in the same location. However, their telepathy is entirely undetectable to our senses. Science has no means or methods to validate this experience. So what is science's position on this claim? I assume you believe that science would thereby label it 'false'? This itself is false. Science doesn't call things like this 'false' - because things like this aren't within science's provenance - science simply places ZERO value on such contentions - in terms of establishing empirical quantities in the universe, me stating that aliens telepathically communicate with me is of no value whatsoever. I expect that most normal people would treat these claims the same way too - to basically ignore them because of their lack of meaning, value and credibility. Of course, some people are special and have strange social needs that may encourage them to lend unwarranted belief to such claims, but that doesn't mean science has failed them, or something.

So, when I start telling everyone that aliens telepathically communicate with me, what exactly is science supposed to do about this? How much money is supposed to go into determining the validity of a claim that merely amounts to someone making an unevidenced assertion? What disciplines of science exactly would we even rely on? Psychologists? Seminologists? Physicists? The reason no relevant scientific discipline exists is because there's never been any empirical, intersubjective evidence provided in history, but boy oh boy do special humans churn out these special claims in gargantuan numbers.

So tell me how you imagine this works: scientists are employed not to make discoveries about real world problems, but instead to investigate every unevidenced claim uttered by anyone about an experience they once had?

It's bat-shit mate... the world does not and cannot work this way.

If you contend I am wrong, then please be very detailed in explaining a world that works otherwise.

This perspective suggests that science should not be seen as the only valid form of knowledge.

Not only is science not the only form of knowledge, but no scientist in history (or anyone with a functioning brain) has ever thought that science is the only form of knowledge. Every scientist and non-scientist alike wakes up in the morning and gleans a massive amount of valid knowledge before they even leave the house. Opening your eyes is sufficient to 'glean knowledge'... so I think you might again be, shall we say, recapitulating poorly considered and conceived strawman notions that are pretty much indicative of dire reasoning faculties. Unironically, it's not science that would help such people, but just a general education and some basic critical thinking skills.

You don't 'refute' skepticism: you overcome it.

...

Spearthrower, are you a scientific skeptic?

[Calderaro]

Why are there skeptics who hate people who believe in spirits?

[Calderaro]

Is a person who believes in spirits and who accesses a skeptical forum with the intention of convincing skeptics to believe in spirits an ignorant person?

[Calderaro]

If the scientific method is not infallible, what authority does it have to claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of spirits?

[Spearthrower]

Am I just asking questions?

Do I intend to engage in any level of substance?

What colour are a unicorn's pubes?

[Spearthrower]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

"Just Asking Questions" (JAQ; known derisively as "JAQing off")[a] is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions. If criticized, the proponent of such a claim may then defend themselves by asserting they were merely asking questions which may upset the mainstream consensus.

So, removing the JAQing off... your posts should read:

1) There are skeptics who hate people who believe in spirits.
2) A person who believes in spirits but accesses a skeptical forum with the intention of convincing skeptics to believe in spirits is an ignorant person.
3) As the scientific method is fallible, it does not have the authority to claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of spirits.

In response to your claims.

1) Are there? I guess it's quite possible depending both on the personality of the skeptic and the personality and perhaps behavior of the person who believes in spirits.

2) I am not sure what ignorance has to do with anything here, but perhaps a more appropriate word would be 'misguided'. Intending to convince an audience of skeptics who value evidence that you have some Special Sauce evidence or that anecdotes should be granted empirical status would seem to be a rather profitless affair for all concerned.

From my perspective at this moment of 1 & 2 and reading behind the heavily bolded lines - if you have come here to persuade us of spirits, then the manner in which you so far have proceeded is not exactly likely to make anyone feel enamoured of you given how little investment you've personally made so far, yet seem to have invested more effort in contending what others purportedly believe. Ignorant? I couldn't say. But there are some indications that you aren't engaging in good faith discourse - do let me know if that's unfair.

3) This is just a confused muddle.

I don't know what standard you expect, but I've already explained to you that it's utterly inane to place the bar of any human activity at 'infallible' - one of the scientific method's great strengths is that it doesn't follow the lazy, self-confirming belief systems so many humans rub themselves off to sleep at night with, but instead has a built-in correction mechanism wherein finding new evidence will overturn past erroneous beliefs. Bet whatever's running under your hood replaces this legitimacy with absolute, unquestioning certainty. Or else you'd understand. Or else you'd realize why this is one of the most important drivers of discovery.

It's not the scientific method which has the 'authority' to define empirical evidence (feel free to disprove me by citing which scientific articles have been published setting out the rules of empirical evidence acceptance). The concept of empirical evidence exists independently of the scientific method. I've already provided you with a working definition of empirical evidence in this thread - that you seem to have ignored - but it merely means 'observable' - whether that be through our senses directly, or via some other tool contrived to measure detected forces. Is your purported evidence observable, or is it special, contingent, intransient, or just plain unmeasurable? Then best go hawk that snake oil to a more "open-minded" audience!

Finally, if you want to claim that there is empirical evidence of spirits - why are you being so very damn coy? C'mon chap - whack it out on the table and let us all have a good look at it. Best make sure that it's worth the perusal first though - you'd be surprised how many flaccid flops we've had proudly presented here over the years.

The confused muddle does explain why you presented these claims in question form though, eh? Wouldn't want to have to substantiate any of your own positions as in a good faith discussion, or anything like that, eh?

[BlackBart]

Why are there skeptics who hate people who believe in spirits?

I've never met one. You'd need to ask whoever made such a claim I suppose.

[BlackBart]

Is a person who believes in spirits and who accesses a skeptical forum with the intention of convincing skeptics to believe in spirits an ignorant person?

Not ignorant per se. They may be ignorant of how to achieve such a goal.

[BlackBart]

If the scientific method is not infallible, what authority does it have to claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of spirits?

spirits do not exist!

You seem confused, Calderaro.

[The_Metatron]

If the scientific method is not infallible, what authority does it have to claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of spirits?

Produce this evidence.

[Fenrir]

Being fallible is what makes the scientific method so powerful.

Understand. Then criticise.

The other way round just makes you look silly.

[Spearthrower]

If the scientific method is not infallible, what authority does it have to claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of spirits?

Produce this evidence.

But it has a question mark, so he's... (sing it together now, folks)

[Spearthrower]

Being fallible is what makes the scientific method so powerful.

Understand. Then criticise.

The other way round just makes you look silly.

Try, feedback, refine.

I don't know what makes this such a bugbear for religious and wooist worldviews. It's almost like they want stuff not to be known so that they can then just make up any old shit they feel like - less effort, I guess.