The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[pErvinalia]

A deist god isn't really of much interest to anyone. It's the theistic curtain twitcher that is the main pest and the one that is actually debunked by science. But a deistic god that kicked it all off and then sat back to watch the show is indistinguishable from natural processes, and as such, it is not even necessary to speculate, because there is no difference between that god and natural laws.

[Mr.Samsa]

Again, you have missed the point. This goes way beyond the rather obvious point of science not requiring the hypothesis, to society as a whole not needing the god hypothesis. Before science provided rational explanations for puzzling phenomena, the god hypothesis was relevant to all humanity. Religions relied heavily on the explanatory power of the supernatural. Simply, with that gone, why would anybody have any reason other than emotional attachment from childhood to suppose a god of any sort, let alone the traditional crowd of warped and sociopathic sky daddies?

It may not formally disprove the existence of god (as I've agreed all along), but it sure as hell "brings into doubt the idea of god". You seem to be dogmatically focused on the principle that science can have nothing whatsoever to say about a religious view of life. Arrant nonsense, of course; the explanatory value of science has vastly reduced the degree to which religion of any sort has universal significance.

It doesn't bring us any reason to doubt the idea of god though, it just provides another possible explanation that excludes god. If I posit that Rev stole my cookies and you present a plausible alternative that FBM might have stolen them, then that doesn't make it more or less likely that Rev stole them.

If you're talking purely about persuasion and rhetoric then sure, people believe irrational things all the time and I'm sure presenting an alternative explanation will cause people to doubt it but the point is simply a logical one, in that there is no logical reason to doubt it based on the existence of an alternative explanation.

If it gives no justification or reason to believe that it's giving an accurate description of reality then it's doing a shit job at it. The point being that even if it somehow stumbles upon an accurate claim about the real world, we have as much trust in its accuracy as we do with the claim that Harry Potter describes the real world. If a description of reality is no more reliable than a children's book then how can we say it's doing a good job of describing that reality?

That still doesn't make sense. No one in this thread has said that science is describing reality (well, actually, FBM has, I think; but certainly not myself, Jim, Hermit or XC).

What does it matter if anyone has said that? I haven't claimed that anyone has.

Jim made a comment that if we compared the predictive success of metaphysics as applied to the physical observable world then we'd see that it's shit compared to science. I agreed but pointed out that it's nonsensical to compare completely different fields that attempt to answer different questions - metaphysics attempts to answer questions about reality whereas science attempts to answer questions about the observable world.

If I want to answer a question about reality I'll look to metaphysics, if I want to answer a question about the observable world I'll look to science. If I were to complain that metaphysics sucks because it can't explain the observable world or complain that science sucks because it can't explain reality then I'd be barking up the wrong tree - the point is that they are shit at those things because they aren't attempting to answer those questions.

I'm not sure how your point still stands, as my refutation still stands.

What refutation? Are you claiming that science attempts to explain reality?? If so, that's bonkers.

Your point was that science could still be okay at describing reality because it might inadvertently get things right some of the time and I refuted it by pointing out that we can apply the same logic to Harry Potter.

Of course I'm not claiming that science attempts to describe reality, the entire point of my reply to Jim and the comment this whole line of discussion stemmed from was that science doesn't attempt to explain reality.

It doesn't have a "special status", it's just logic applied to particular questions and we call this "metaphysics". It makes no sense to ask what it's telling you that you couldn't work out with logic because it is the field that works stuff out using logic. It has to do with reality because it's answering questions about reality.

So yet again, what is it telling us?

You understand that this is an impossibly broad question, right? What metaphysics tells us is how to think about reality, what questions are reasonable about reality, what metaphysical positions are inconsistent or illogical, etc etc. You'll probably come back saying that it's too "vague" but if you ask a vague question then the only possible answer is a vague one. If I ask what science is telling us then the only response can be things like: it tells us how to think about the observable world, what we know about the observable world, what theories are likely to be true or false, etc.

No, you asked for examples of metaphysical evidence and I gave you those justifications for various metaphysical positions. I then explained to you that they are evidences used to support claims about reality.

No you didn't. You explained nothing at all about "reality".

Then my comment here seems a little strange: "They are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.".

You made an assertion and when asked to explain your working you ignore it. THAT's what I want to know about? Why won't you guys answer this question?? What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?

You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.

What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?

As I answered last time, they are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality. If someone thinks that the whole discussion of reality is pointless and that all that matters is that you believe the bus is real before it hits you because it's useful to do so then you justify that claim about reality using something like pragmatism - that's metaphysics, that's metaphysical evidence for that claim.

If you think that reality can be explained without appealing to things 'behind the illusions' and that the simplest answer is the correct one, that there is no need to multiply beyond necessity, etc, then parsimony can be used to justify that metaphysical claim.

Parsimony and pragmatism have nothing to do with reality. They are philosophical methods to apply within the field of science. And since science doesn't care about reality, neither do parsimony and pragmatism.

Huh? Parsimony and pragmatism aren't tools to apply to science, they are philosophical tools full stop. They can be applied to science, or ethics, or metaphysics, or epistemology, etc.

As I asked you before and I don't think you answered, do you really think that the idea of a disembodied soul controlling our bodies is just as likely as the processes of our brain controlling our behavior? Remember that you can't answer that either way without doing metaphysics, so you either have to conclude that you can't decide between the two or conclude that metaphysics tells us something.

I've already answered this. I couldn't be bothered re-writing my reply. I'll go and find it and edit in a link here.

Fuck, I can't find it. It must be in the other thread. You'll probably have replied to it there.

You couldn't find it because you didn't reply, you've only just replied in the other thread.

But in short, without empiricism I have no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other. They are equally as likely or unlikely. Score 1 for empiricism, 0 for metaphysics! [/quote}

What? Is this like the return of logical positivism or something? If I show you that a concept is a logical impossibility, you'd think it is as equally likely as a logically possible, coherent, and plausible concept? Really?

If you want answers to those questions then just check back to my posts where I responded. You so far haven't replied to those bits (and/or misunderstood them so badly that you probably need to read them, e.g. asking for metaphysical evidence and then thinking that that is an example of metaphysical reality).

No, that's not good enough. I've rebutted your answers.

You didn't even respond to half of them, let alone rebut them!

You need to try harder to answer the question asked, or accept that you are not explaining it well enough. I'm no philosopher, but I am smart enough to understand most things if they are explained using reason and logic. You need to re-explain your points. They aren't making sense.

I can lead a horse to water, but if I say something is "metaphysical evidence" and it gets interpreted as descriptions of reality, then there's literally nothing I can do. I can only control the words I use, I can't control wild misinterpretations of what I'm saying. I have explained the position in detail and yet you've ignored most of the substantive responses to your questions in favour of snipped out single lines where you complain that it's not detailed enough for you (whilst ignoring all the context around it that explains it).

You are giving a lot of one line answers, which is why I speculated that criteria 1 above might be an explanation for what is going on here. But equally, 2 could be an explanation. Try and expand on your answers and "show your working". Just blurting out assertions isn't explaining anything.

I have expanded and shown my working, you haven't responded to them at all which leads me to suspect that (3) is the most likely explanation here. I mean, just look at how long it took to figure out that "metaphysics" did not mean "non-physical" or "non-empirical".

And regards your last bit, I wanted to see some metaphysical evidence that told us something about metaphysical reality.

And I provided that, I even expanded on it above (which was the first time you asked for a clarification).

As far as I can tell, Metaphysics is just a branch of logical enquiry that deals with logical questions about reality. But since we have no way of knowing what reality is, then it is basically very limited in what it can tell us.

We have no way of knowing before we do metaphysics, and then we gather evidence to determine which positions are more or less likely. More importantly, as I've mentioned a few times now and you haven't commented on, if you claim that there is no way of knowing what reality is then you are making a metaphysical claim.

So in that case, I would see "metaphysical evidence" as simply a statement of whether a logical proposition was valid or not (i.e. just like the rest of logic). It can't tell us anything at all about "reality". What it can tell us is limited by it's premises and assumptions. How does that sound?

If you make a valid logical proposition about a claim regarding reality then that tells us about reality.

Okay then, tell me how you would test the claim that the entirely natural processes that led up to the development of man were not caused by a god? Remember that the natural processes in a godless world and the hypothetical world are identical as he's making changing using natural processes, not by major shifts in nature.

Why would I need to test for such a thing? There are viable, scientific theories that explain the processes in minute detail and agree with all available facts. There is no need to prove conjectures that add nothing to that explanations. There could be fairies, invisible, pink unicorns, gods, demons and honest lawyers in the world but we have a perfectly good model that suits for all practical purposes without having to allow for them.

Should facts arise that cannot be explained by the current thinking, then alternatives and refinements need to be found. One rabbit fossil in Precambrian strata...

You need to do such a thing because you claimed that if something was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. I've presented an example of something which I think is untestable and unprovable. You are now in a position where you either need to: a) reject your initial claim or b) tell me how my example is testable or provable. There is no third option.

..It's not an hypothesis at all, null or otherwise.

It's the default position. There is no evidence that things are otherwise. Again, the simplest explanation suffices unless it is proven faulty.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

A deist god isn't really of much interest to anyone. It's the theistic curtain twitcher that is the main pest and the one that is actually debunked by science. But a deistic god that kicked it all off and then sat back to watch the show is indistinguishable from natural processes, and as such, it is not even necessary to speculate, because there is no difference between that god and natural laws.

Nobody is talking about a deist god, my example is of a very active and very influential interventionist god. And yes, there is no difference between that god and natural laws but that's not the point - it was claimed that if such a thing did exist, since it was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. It clearly would so the claim is necessarily false.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Okay then, tell me how you would test the claim that the entirely natural processes that led up to the development of man were not caused by a god? Remember that the natural processes in a godless world and the hypothetical world are identical as he's making changing using natural processes, not by major shifts in nature.

Why would I need to test for such a thing? There are viable, scientific theories that explain the processes in minute detail and agree with all available facts. There is no need to prove conjectures that add nothing to that explanations. There could be fairies, invisible, pink unicorns, gods, demons and honest lawyers in the world but we have a perfectly good model that suits for all practical purposes without having to allow for them.

Should facts arise that cannot be explained by the current thinking, then alternatives and refinements need to be found. One rabbit fossil in Precambrian strata...

You need to do such a thing because you claimed that if something was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. I've presented an example of something which I think is untestable and unprovable. You are now in a position where you either need to: a) reject your initial claim or b) tell me how my example is testable or provable. There is no third option.

Actually, you have provided an example that may very well not exist at all and has had no discernible effect on the world. You claim that this god could have caused certain effects; science counter-claims that these effects are purely natural and in accord with its current theories. Since there is no requirement for anything over and above current scientific understanding, there is no more requirement to prove that god didn't do it than there is to prove that fairies didn't do it, or Justin Bieber didn't do it.

I reject your false dichotomy.

..It's not an hypothesis at all, null or otherwise.

It's the default position. There is no evidence that things are otherwise. Again, the simplest explanation suffices unless it is proven faulty.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

I think I have already gone to great lengths to state my view that science has no business speculating on that for which there is no evidence and no prospect of finding any. Mindwankery, I called it. Where it makes unprovable assumptions, it chooses those that are as simple as possible until they lead to a contradiction with its findings - then, and only then, does it revise such parameters. Attempting to use science to justify its own unprovable assumptions would be the very circular argument you falsely accused me of earlier. The justification for the initial parameters that are assumed is simply results consistent with observed evidence. Once results emerge that are at odds with evidence, the parameters are shifted - as was the case when Einstein abandoned the concepts of invariant time and space. Currently, uniformitarianism is the simplest parameter possible and assuming it has not (to my knowledge) produced results that would be better explained by supplanting it.

[Mr.Samsa]

You need to do such a thing because you claimed that if something was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. I've presented an example of something which I think is untestable and unprovable. You are now in a position where you either need to: a) reject your initial claim or b) tell me how my example is testable or provable. There is no third option.

Actually, you have provided an example that may very well not exist at all and has had no discernible effect on the world. You claim that this god could have caused certain effects; science counter-claims that these effects are purely natural and in accord with its current theories. Since there is no requirement for anything over and above current scientific understanding, there is no more requirement to prove that god didn't do it than there is to prove that fairies didn't do it, or Justin Bieber didn't do it.

You're still missing the point - it's a hypothetical, not an actual claim about what I think happens in our world. In this hypothetical we have an example of an untestable and unprovable thing that has a massive effect on the world, something which you claimed could not happen. I did not claim that this god could have had an effect, but rather that it did.

So how are you going to respond to that? Are you going to reject your initial claim or demonstrate that it's testable or unprovable in some way?

I reject your false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when a dichotomy is presented and there are in fact other viable options. I presented a true dichotomy and you failed to present any other options.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

I think I have already gone to great lengths to state my view that science has no business speculating on that for which there is no evidence and no prospect of finding any. Mindwankery, I called it.

But we aren't talking about scientific research, we are talking about the unevidenced assumptions of science upon which the entire method is founded on.

Where it makes unprovable assumptions, it chooses those that are as simple as possible until they lead to a contradiction with its findings - then, and only then, does it revise such parameters.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Sheldrake would ask if "simple as possible until contradicted" is a valid basis for the entire scientific enterprise and whether it would justify the claims that science makes.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

It doesn't bring us any reason to doubt the idea of god though, it just provides another possible explanation that excludes god.

This to me, is an utterly weird statement. Through all of history, religion has attempted to convince its adherents, without any direct evidence whatsoever, of the existence of a supernatural being. Christian theologists, at least, attempted to bolster that position with a large number of examples involving phenomena in the observable world for with no obvious explanation existed, but that could have been the result of the intervention of a god. This additional set of arguments was extremely important to the church, particularly in persuading the growing number of literate and thoughtful people that the existence of god had multiple supporting arguments. Without better alternative explanations, it was an intellectually justifiable position in its day.

One by one, the march of science has eliminated all of those supports. It is a totally accurate description to say that science directly created doubt in the idea of god, especially during the enlightenment. Again, you are confusing the concept of science wrongly attempting to use logic and empirical evidence to disprove the existence of god with something that is, in some ways, more important - making people see that a belief in god is an immature and unnecessary holdover from the age of superstition.

Religion, once supported by a vigorous forest of intellectual support, was left nervously clinging to a single, wavering sapling of faith, a sapling that is starting to rot from its hollow core...

[Mr.Samsa]

Yeah, I think you're referring to persuasion and rhetoric.

[JimC]

Yeah, I think you're referring to persuasion and rhetoric.

Well, that is precisely what creating doubt is all about. In a court case, if a defence barrister can produce an alternative scenario which explains the events equally well or better, then the defendant is released, and the prosecutor's case (godidit) is dismissed...

Science has been responsible for creating the vast majority of reasoned doubt in the existence of god, which is enough for many people to abandon religion as a pointless exercise in unsupported belief.

[Mr.Samsa]

Yeah, I think you're referring to persuasion and rhetoric.

Well, that is precisely what creating doubt is all about. In a court case, if a defence barrister can produce an alternative scenario which explains the events equally well or better, then the defendant is released, and the prosecutor's case (godidit) is dismissed...

Science has been responsible for creating the vast majority of reasoned doubt in the existence of god, which is enough for many people to abandon religion as a pointless exercise in unsupported belief.

As I explained, and then clarified above, I'm talking about reasons to doubt - as in logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition. If I say that the fact of Michael Behe having a biochemistry degree doesn't give me any reason to doubt the truth of evolution (due to his arguments on irreducible complexity), I mean that there is no logical reason why his PhD would be relevant to the validity of that claim and it would in fact be fallacious of me to reach that conclusion on that basis.

But that doesn't mean there aren't idiots out there who will believe that based on that fact. They will doubt evolution because of it but that's purely a persuasive and rhetorical issue, and a fairly uninteresting one at that. People can be swayed to doubt god and religion on the basis of things like neuroscientific results on what happens during a spiritual moment (à la the "god helmet") even though it has nothing to say about the truth of a possible god or spiritual experience and in fact only works on the basis of supreme scientific ignorance of what neuroscientific results tell us.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You need to do such a thing because you claimed that if something was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. I've presented an example of something which I think is untestable and unprovable. You are now in a position where you either need to: a) reject your initial claim or b) tell me how my example is testable or provable. There is no third option.

Actually, you have provided an example that may very well not exist at all and has had no discernible effect on the world. You claim that this god could have caused certain effects; science counter-claims that these effects are purely natural and in accord with its current theories. Since there is no requirement for anything over and above current scientific understanding, there is no more requirement to prove that god didn't do it than there is to prove that fairies didn't do it, or Justin Bieber didn't do it.

You're still missing the point - it's a hypothetical, not an actual claim about what I think happens in our world. In this hypothetical we have an example of an untestable and unprovable thing that has a massive effect on the world, something which you claimed could not happen. I did not claim that this god could have had an effect, but rather that it did.

So how are you going to respond to that? Are you going to reject your initial claim or demonstrate that it's testable or unprovable in some way?

"a god that exists who manipulates the world through naturalistic means, so (for example) at some point in our history he steps in with a naturalistic event so that humans appear."

How to test for such manipulation would depend upon the god's exact methods of "manipulating the world through naturalistic means" and the precise changes that were made by this meddling. Your hypothetical is far too vague on this.

I reject your false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when a dichotomy is presented and there are in fact other viable options. I presented a true dichotomy and you failed to present any other options.

The alternative was that your hypothetical was not a genuine example of something unprovable that causes noticeable effects in the universe.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

I think I have already gone to great lengths to state my view that science has no business speculating on that for which there is no evidence and no prospect of finding any. Mindwankery, I called it.

But we aren't talking about scientific research, we are talking about the unevidenced assumptions of science upon which the entire method is founded on.

Where it makes unprovable assumptions, it chooses those that are as simple as possible until they lead to a contradiction with its findings - then, and only then, does it revise such parameters.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Sheldrake would ask if "simple as possible until contradicted" is a valid basis for the entire scientific enterprise and whether it would justify the claims that science makes.

Which is where I fall back upon pragmatism as justification along with science's proven track record of refining and replacing both theories and assumptions that are proven to be either false or incomplete.

[Mr.Samsa]

You're still missing the point - it's a hypothetical, not an actual claim about what I think happens in our world. In this hypothetical we have an example of an untestable and unprovable thing that has a massive effect on the world, something which you claimed could not happen. I did not claim that this god could have had an effect, but rather that it did.

So how are you going to respond to that? Are you going to reject your initial claim or demonstrate that it's testable or unprovable in some way?

"a god that exists who manipulates the world through naturalistic means, so (for example) at some point in our history he steps in with a naturalistic event so that humans appear."

How to test for such manipulation would depend upon the god's exact methods of "manipulating the world through naturalistic means" and the precise changes that were made by this meddling. Your hypothetical is far too vague on this.

As I explained, he manipulates the world through the use of naturalistic processes in a way that is entirely consistent with a world as if he didn't exist and so there would be no observable "changes" as it would appear exactly the same as if it were always going to happen. The hypothetical isn't vague, you're just stalling as you don't want to retract your claim.

A false dichotomy is when a dichotomy is presented and there are in fact other viable options. I presented a true dichotomy and you failed to present any other options.

The alternative was that your hypothetical was not a genuine example of something unprovable that causes noticeable effects in the universe.

Then you need to explain how. If you think it is provable, then present a case for how that could be done. I assume you're not challenging the "noticeable effects" part as the creation and existence of the entire human race and the fossil record leading up to that point is rather noticeable.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You're still missing the point - it's a hypothetical, not an actual claim about what I think happens in our world. In this hypothetical we have an example of an untestable and unprovable thing that has a massive effect on the world, something which you claimed could not happen. I did not claim that this god could have had an effect, but rather that it did.

So how are you going to respond to that? Are you going to reject your initial claim or demonstrate that it's testable or unprovable in some way?

"a god that exists who manipulates the world through naturalistic means, so (for example) at some point in our history he steps in with a naturalistic event so that humans appear."

How to test for such manipulation would depend upon the god's exact methods of "manipulating the world through naturalistic means" and the precise changes that were made by this meddling. Your hypothetical is far too vague on this.

As I explained, he manipulates the world through the use of naturalistic processes in a way that is entirely consistent with a world as if he didn't exist and so there would be no observable "changes" as it would appear exactly the same as if it were always going to happen. The hypothetical isn't vague, you're just stalling as you don't want to retract your claim.

So your hypothetical is that a god exists that "does things", the result of which is exactly the same as if he had not done them. In which case, how can you claim that it has had an effect on the world? Of course you can't test for what didn't do something! You claim a "massive effect" but you offer nothing.

A false dichotomy is when a dichotomy is presented and there are in fact other viable options. I presented a true dichotomy and you failed to present any other options.

The alternative was that your hypothetical was not a genuine example of something unprovable that causes noticeable effects in the universe.

Then you need to explain how. If you think it is provable, then present a case for how that could be done. I assume you're not challenging the "noticeable effects" part as the creation and existence of the entire human race and the fossil record leading up to that point is rather noticeable.

See my answer above. THey are very noticeable but they are here in any case. Your hypothetical MUST change something or else it has no effect and obviously cannot, and need not, be tested!

[Hermit]

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

I'm talking about reasons to doubt - as in logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition.

And there is the heart of the contradiction. You are equating "reasons to doubt" with "logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition". Demonstrating reasons to doubt does not have to include the logical falsification of a position. Simply significantly reducing the supporting arguments for a position will do that nicely; science has clearly achieved that. And I would actually go further, and say that your stronger version, "logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition" is something that science actually does as well. It presents a logically sound challenge to a belief in a supernatural being, without needing to dogmatically assert the certain non-existence of a deity.

[Mr.Samsa]

As I explained, he manipulates the world through the use of naturalistic processes in a way that is entirely consistent with a world as if he didn't exist and so there would be no observable "changes" as it would appear exactly the same as if it were always going to happen. The hypothetical isn't vague, you're just stalling as you don't want to retract your claim.

So your hypothetical is that a god exists that "does things", the result of which is exactly the same as if he had not done them. In which case, how can you claim that it has had an effect on the world? Of course you can't test for what didn't do something! You claim a "massive effect" but you offer nothing.

You are confusing what claims we can justify believing with what claims are true. The point is that in this hypothetical we have an untestable and unprovable god that has a massive effect on the world (the creation of humankind), you seem to now be accepting that it's a refutation of your earlier claim.

Then you need to explain how. If you think it is provable, then present a case for how that could be done. I assume you're not challenging the "noticeable effects" part as the creation and existence of the entire human race and the fossil record leading up to that point is rather noticeable.

See my answer above. THey are very noticeable but they are here in any case. Your hypothetical MUST change something or else it has no effect and obviously cannot, and need not, be tested!

It has changed something, it created the entire human race.

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims. They are claims about reality that need to be justified in some way.

I don't think there's any need to discuss whether the gap is actually bridgeable because at the moment we're just discussing the validity of metaphysics as a field and it being bridgeable or unbridgeable would have no effect on its validity.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

I'm talking about reasons to doubt - as in logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition.

And there is the heart of the contradiction. You are equating "reasons to doubt" with "logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition". Demonstrating reasons to doubt does not have to include the logical falsification of a position. Simply significantly reducing the supporting arguments for a position will do that nicely; science has clearly achieved that. And I would actually go further, and say that your stronger version, "logically sound challenges to a particular claim or proposition" is something that science actually does as well. It presents a logically sound challenge to a belief in a supernatural being, without needing to dogmatically assert the certain non-existence of a deity.

Nobody is claiming that it needs to be an absolute logical falsification, the point is simply that there is no logical or rational power behind the position you're arguing for. It's persuasive to some people, definitely, but not because it has anything meaningful to actually say on the topic. It's directly comparable to the analogy of Behe having a doctorate which gives us reason to doubt evolution - sure, it's a "reason", there's just no power behind it as it doesn't challenge evolution in any way.

[pErvinalia]

Again, you have missed the point. This goes way beyond the rather obvious point of science not requiring the hypothesis, to society as a whole not needing the god hypothesis. Before science provided rational explanations for puzzling phenomena, the god hypothesis was relevant to all humanity. Religions relied heavily on the explanatory power of the supernatural. Simply, with that gone, why would anybody have any reason other than emotional attachment from childhood to suppose a god of any sort, let alone the traditional crowd of warped and sociopathic sky daddies?

It may not formally disprove the existence of god (as I've agreed all along), but it sure as hell "brings into doubt the idea of god". You seem to be dogmatically focused on the principle that science can have nothing whatsoever to say about a religious view of life. Arrant nonsense, of course; the explanatory value of science has vastly reduced the degree to which religion of any sort has universal significance.

It doesn't bring us any reason to doubt the idea of god though, it just provides another possible explanation that excludes god. If I posit that Rev stole my cookies and you present a plausible alternative that FBM might have stolen them, then that doesn't make it more or less likely that Rev stole them.

It would be pretty likely that I stole them. I'm a bit of a sugar fiend!

If it gives no justification or reason to believe that it's giving an accurate description of reality then it's doing a shit job at it. The point being that even if it somehow stumbles upon an accurate claim about the real world, we have as much trust in its accuracy as we do with the claim that Harry Potter describes the real world. If a description of reality is no more reliable than a children's book then how can we say it's doing a good job of describing that reality?

That still doesn't make sense. No one in this thread has said that science is describing reality (well, actually, FBM has, I think; but certainly not myself, Jim, Hermit or XC).

What does it matter if anyone has said that? I haven't claimed that anyone has.

But you keep saying "then how can we say it's doing a good job of describing reality?". For the nth time, no one is saying that it does a good job of describing reality. Do you understand this? If you understand this, then why do you keep saying that??

If I want to answer a question about reality I'll look to metaphysics,

So you keep saying, but you haven't told us what metaphysics can actually tell us about reality. I've ask this question nx ( ) times, and still haven't got a detailed answer.

If I were to complain that metaphysics sucks because it can't explain the observable world or complain that science sucks because it can't explain reality then I'd be barking up the wrong tree - the point is that they are shit at those things because they aren't attempting to answer those questions.

And no one debating you here would disagree with that. Hence why I don't understand why you keep bringing up these points.

I'm not sure how your point still stands, as my refutation still stands.

What refutation? Are you claiming that science attempts to explain reality?? If so, that's bonkers.

Your point was that science could still be okay at describing reality because it might inadvertently get things right some of the time and I refuted it by pointing out that we can apply the same logic to Harry Potter.

How's that a refutation?? It does nothing to refute the logic that science could potentially be reflecting some element of the truth. Whether Harry Potter does or not is irrelevant to the logical truth that science could be.

Of course I'm not claiming that science attempts to describe reality, the entire point of my reply to Jim and the comment this whole line of discussion stemmed from was that science doesn't attempt to explain reality.

And no one, other than FBM (who you aren't replying to with this line of quotes), has said that it does. So why are you even talking about it?

It doesn't have a "special status", it's just logic applied to particular questions and we call this "metaphysics". It makes no sense to ask what it's telling you that you couldn't work out with logic because it is the field that works stuff out using logic. It has to do with reality because it's answering questions about reality.

So yet again, what is it telling us?

You understand that this is an impossibly broad question, right? What metaphysics tells us is how to think about reality, what questions are reasonable about reality, what metaphysical positions are inconsistent or illogical, etc etc. You'll probably come back saying that it's too "vague" but if you ask a vague question then the only possible answer is a vague one.

No, I'll come back and say what I've said before: That's exactly what it does. It doesn't tell us anything at all about reality, only about the logical consistency of arguments involving the concept of "reality". But as you know, logic can be valid but not necessarily true (those are probably the incorrect terms for it; what I mean is that a logical statement can be logically consistent, but if the premises are false, the answer isn't correct outside the specific cases of the premises).

No, you asked for examples of metaphysical evidence and I gave you those justifications for various metaphysical positions. I then explained to you that they are evidences used to support claims about reality.

No you didn't. You explained nothing at all about "reality".

Then my comment here seems a little strange: "They are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.".

Yes, but that is meaningless. HOW does it argue in favour of one view of reality over another, given it has absolutely zero access to reality? It doesn't have anything to do with reality. It has everything to do with logical reasoning. Hence metaphysical evidence doesn't tell us anything at all about reality. It just tells us about the coherence of logical arguments about the concept of "reality".

You made an assertion and when asked to explain your working you ignore it. THAT's what I want to know about? Why won't you guys answer this question?? What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?

You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.

Samsa, seriously. I responded to this crap in that thread and you didn't respond to it. So yes, you factually did ignore it. I await your wibble as to why that wasn't you ignoring it.

And I agree that I don't understand the topic well enough, that's why I am asking you to explain it. But you are doing a woeful job as I've described above in this post. You're posting a lot of stuff that is irrelevant to anything anyone has said in debate with you, as if that is an answer to those rebuttals. You've repeatedly said that metaphysics tells us something about reality. That is either factually bollocks (which I suspect it is, as you haven't been able to show one thing it tells us about reality), or you aren't explaining it well enough, or my preferred option - you are being sloppy with your language. When asked for you to show me something metaphysics tell us about reality, you just keep pointing out it's approach to logical investigation. That's not telling us a single thing about reality. That's only telling us what metaphysics actually appears to be, that is - a method to logically assess claims about reality. That is, it can discard some claims as false (due to failure in logic), but it can't prove any claim at all, as the premises it relies on are assumptions. And that's fine if that's all it does, but in that case "metaphysical evidence" is a bit of a bait and switch scam. It's just simply standard logical reasoning that is totally independent of anything to do with reality (other than the fact that "reality" is being hypothesised about). We don't need Metapicnics to discuss the logical validity of arguments involving picnic tables. We just use standard logic.

Having said all that, I certainly appreciate the role of metaphysics in explicating the various positions and ideologies regarding science and observation. But none of that tells me a single thing about reality. It just tells me about what science is doing and what it isn't doing. (which I already knew very well).

What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?

As I answered last time, they are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.

Stop repeating empty assertions. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me how they do this. Just saying they do this absent of any explanation (showing your work), is useless.

If someone thinks that the whole discussion of reality is pointless and that all that matters is that you believe the bus is real before it hits you because it's useful to do so then you justify that claim about reality using something like pragmatism - that's metaphysics, that's metaphysical evidence for that claim.

That didn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

How are you going to argue in favour of one view of reality over another, when metaphysics provides no probability assessments? A metaphysical statement is either logically consistent or it isn't. Therefore, you don't "favour" one over the other. You discard the logically incoherent view.

If you think that reality can be explained without appealing to things 'behind the illusions' and that the simplest answer is the correct one, that there is no need to multiply beyond necessity, etc, then parsimony can be used to justify that metaphysical claim.

That doesn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

Both of those are philosophical approaches to science. Science tells us nothing whatsoever about "reality".

Parsimony and pragmatism have nothing to do with reality. They are philosophical methods to apply within the field of science. And since science doesn't care about reality, neither do parsimony and pragmatism.

Huh? Parsimony and pragmatism aren't tools to apply to science, they are philosophical tools full stop. They can be applied to science, or ethics, or metaphysics, or epistemology, etc.

That's right, they are "philosophical tools". Tell me again how philosophy has any access to reality? It doesn't.

As I asked you before and I don't think you answered, do you really think that the idea of a disembodied soul controlling our bodies is just as likely as the processes of our brain controlling our behavior? Remember that you can't answer that either way without doing metaphysics, so you either have to conclude that you can't decide between the two or conclude that metaphysics tells us something.

I've already answered this. I couldn't be bothered re-writing my reply. I'll go and find it and edit in a link here.

Fuck, I can't find it. It must be in the other thread. You'll probably have replied to it there.

You couldn't find it because you didn't reply, you've only just replied in the other thread.

Christ, Samsa. What the fuck is going on at your end of the internet. Check the bloody time stamps. I replied to it before you made this dumb post. And of course I didn't reply to it in this thread, you didn't ask the fucking question in this thread. If you can't keep track of where discussion are happening, then that's not my concern. Don't get snarky at me because you thought I hadn't replied because you were confused.

But in short, without empiricism I have no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other. They are equally as likely or unlikely. Score 1 for empiricism, 0 for metaphysics!

What? Is this like the return of logical positivism or something? If I show you that a concept is a logical impossibility, you'd think it is as equally likely as a logically possible, coherent, and plausible concept? Really?

You haven't shown it's logically impossible. If you did, and it was based on reasonable premises, then of course I wouldn't think they were equally likely. That's a strawman of the argument. If you want to go ahead and show me why one is logically impossible, and then ask me the question again, then go ahead and do it. But don't play this 'gotcha' crap.

If you want answers to those questions then just check back to my posts where I responded. You so far haven't replied to those bits (and/or misunderstood them so badly that you probably need to read them, e.g. asking for metaphysical evidence and then thinking that that is an example of metaphysical reality).

No, that's not good enough. I've rebutted your answers.

You didn't even respond to half of them, let alone rebut them!

Samsa, you don't even know what fucking thread you are posting in and you claimed above that you hadn't ignored a reply of mine when you factually had. Sort your shit out. Just don't involve me in it.

You need to try harder to answer the question asked, or accept that you are not explaining it well enough. I'm no philosopher, but I am smart enough to understand most things if they are explained using reason and logic. You need to re-explain your points. They aren't making sense.

I can lead a horse to water, but if I say something is "metaphysical evidence" and it gets interpreted as descriptions of reality, then there's literally nothing I can do.

You're the one who keeps saying it tell us something about "reality". It does no such thing at all, other than discarding illogical claims about reality.

I can only control the words I use, I can't control wild misinterpretations of what I'm saying. I have explained the position in detail and yet you've ignored most of the substantive responses to your questions in favour of snipped out single lines where you complain that it's not detailed enough for you (whilst ignoring all the context around it that explains it).

Bullshit. As shown above, your replies are being ignored as they are irrelevant to anything anyone is debating you about. When you say something relevant, then I respond. But most of your responses that are relevant are empty assertions and one liners. You need to 'show your working' if you want to convince any one of anything.

You are giving a lot of one line answers, which is why I speculated that criteria 1 above might be an explanation for what is going on here. But equally, 2 could be an explanation. Try and expand on your answers and "show your working". Just blurting out assertions isn't explaining anything.

I have expanded and shown my working, you haven't responded to them at all which leads me to suspect that (3) is the most likely explanation here. I mean, just look at how long it took to figure out that "metaphysics" did not mean "non-physical" or "non-empirical".

Man you are a dishonest piece of work. This is why everyone thinks you misrepresent them all the time. Tell me, how long did it take to work out that metaphysics did not mean blah blah blah?? Seriously, go back and fucking look at it. It took one post for you to correct me. Stop being a dishonest wanker.

And regards your last bit, I wanted to see some metaphysical evidence that told us something about metaphysical reality.

And I provided that, I even expanded on it above (which was the first time you asked for a clarification).[/quote]

Rubbish. You clearly are lost as to what's been said and what hasn't been said. Your whole collection of posts on this topic across the two threads are coming across as confused and jaded. Wake up or go and pester some other forum.

As far as I can tell, Metaphysics is just a branch of logical enquiry that deals with logical questions about reality. But since we have no way of knowing what reality is, then it is basically very limited in what it can tell us.

We have no way of knowing before we do metaphysics, and then we gather evidence to determine which positions are more or less likely.

Again, how are you going to determine "likelihood"? That implies a probability measure. Where is this probability assessment coming from? And how can you tell what's more likely than anything else (particularly if two separate views are logically coherent) when we have zero idea of what reality actually is. You can't compare something to something we know zero about and determine likelihood. You can only assess logical consistency. And as I've said, that's got nothing at all to do with "reality".

And additionally, what evidence are we "gathering"? That makes it sound like empiricism. What exactly is being "gathered"?

More importantly, as I've mentioned a few times now and you haven't commented on, if you claim that there is no way of knowing what reality is then you are making a metaphysical claim.

Why would I need to comment on it when I agree with it 100%. All I care about in this debate is working about what all the bollocks about evidence of reality is. I've heard nothing at all about reality (and I don't expect to hear anything about it, give we know exactly zero about it). I've only heard about logic. I already know about logic. Metaphysics in the descriptions by you and Eff so far has added absolutely nothing to that knowledge.

So in that case, I would see "metaphysical evidence" as simply a statement of whether a logical proposition was valid or not (i.e. just like the rest of logic). It can't tell us anything at all about "reality". What it can tell us is limited by it's premises and assumptions. How does that sound?

If you make a valid logical proposition about a claim regarding reality then that tells us about reality.

Another empty assertion. Show your damn working if you want to convince us of this stuff. Can you not see how useless your reply was?? THIS is what I'm talking about with your efforts so far in this discussion. So show your working. How does making a valid logical proposition limited by it's premises and assumptions tells us anything at all about reality. Once again, we know absolutely zero about what reality is. So how are you going to determine if it is actually telling us something about reality?

..It's not an hypothesis at all, null or otherwise.

It's the default position. There is no evidence that things are otherwise. Again, the simplest explanation suffices unless it is proven faulty.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

Assumptions and axioms don't need to be justified. They form part of the system. This sounds like someone on the other board trying to say that the scientific method needs to be justified. You rightly rubbish those statements there, but here you are doing the same thing with the philosophical assumptions of science.

A deist god isn't really of much interest to anyone. It's the theistic curtain twitcher that is the main pest and the one that is actually debunked by science. But a deistic god that kicked it all off and then sat back to watch the show is indistinguishable from natural processes, and as such, it is not even necessary to speculate, because there is no difference between that god and natural laws.

Nobody is talking about a deist god, my example is of a very active and very influential interventionist god. And yes, there is no difference between that god and natural laws but that's not the point - it was claimed that if such a thing did exist, since it was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. It clearly would so the claim is necessarily false.

I think XC was talking about it having an effect on the world outside of natural laws and processes. If god was indistinguishable from natural laws and processes then he wouldn't actually be having an effect on the world in the sense that XC was talking about.