The Good Place

Cast your mind back to the days when scientists believed things that we now know to not be true.  Can you really see scientists' conclusions being the same in years to come as they are now?   I don't understand why my post didn't make sense to you.

I think he understands that the knowledge science produces is progressive. I think he didn't understand how that was relevant to the discussion (neither do I, for that matter).

Linda

Alternatively, if someone is deconstructing a god that isn’t yours, that post probably isn’t addressed to you, and can be ignored.

I suppose the same could be said of "materialism", another false dichotomy which is also trotted out with regularity despite it's irrelevance to science.

Linda

Interesting the threads that get the juices flowing...

For some years I have deliberately made an effort not to preclude any philosophical position in any of my posts. Firstly, it makes sense to me to leave them all on the table (that's the most open-minded position, right?). Secondly, and more importantly it's just boring; eventually some wag will retreat to a (pseudo-profound ) unanswerable question like, "Oh yeah? Well why is there something instead of nothing then?" At that point, depending on our bias, we might say well that's just "the nature of things", or that's how the "mind-at-large" arranges things and, despite the associated baggage,  we might even invoke "god". None of these answers is satisfactory to everyone, and none of them are particularly revelatory either. As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".

Pragmatically science works, no matter the nature of reality, just ask dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake. I'd wager that the vast majority of scientists are not expending time and energy agonising over the metaphysical underpinnings of their reality whilst simply trying to get useful results (except, funnily enough, Radin and Sheldrake). "Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.

Malf, that's precisely the point. 

Philosophers ask questions that center around human concerns. When a philosopher asks, what does it mean? He or she is asking where, how and why humanity and specifically themselves fit in. When a physicist asks the same question she or he is asking what it's revealing about the nature of reality.

"Useful", "boring", "pseudo-profound", "agonising", "speculate" ... all your own words and all point to a kind of weary, uninterested approach. So if all this bores you so much, why comment at all? Why keep coming back? I'm quite happy that you choose to stay, by the way - please don't leave us with just Steve and Linda!

I don't dispute that science produces useful, practical results - I'm warm, well fed and probably alive because of those results so science is important to me. Yet the nature of reality is also important to me because, in my worldview, my life has a point. In my worldview, my life is not the result of some freakish combination of flukes. I want to think about what it means and discuss that with others. I can't just shrug and say "that's just the nature of things" any more than I can kneel and thank some old testament "god" for creating it all in seven days.

Why does this false dichotomy keep getting repeated, over and over again? To hold to a metaphysical position which is not materialism is not anti-science. We here, and others like us, are not science haters. Prominent atheists like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson would love that to be the case - an easy target such as they have with evangelicals - but it is a lie. Moving us forward surely means more than how many transistors we can fit on a slice of silicon, doesn't it? Surely, if scientists started dropping their faithful adherence to materialism - as some appear to be doing with the acknowledgement among some that consciousness may, after all, be fundamental - then we might start to put the so-called paranormal into a category worthy of scientific investigation and the likes of Radin and Sheldrake might not be routinely ridiculed as cranks or pseudo-scientists.

By the way, I agree about the "juices" observation ... who would have thought a thread about a TV comedy would go this way? Should I start one on "Life on Mars"?

I feel obliged as the derailer to say that's another excellent post, Dave !

Yes. The g-word carries a lot of historical baggage. To avoid that, and further confusion, my advice would be to find an alternative. When someone who claims to be non-religious clings onto that word, it can look a bit slippery.

It doesn’t bother me, it might bother a Christian though. This is just PR advice; don’t be surprised at the response it might trigger.

Alternatively, if someone is deconstructing a god that isn’t yours, that post probably isn’t addressed to you, and can be ignored.

I'm not religious but I'll be damned if I'm going to have a hang up about using the word God just because you guys think it's naïve/irrational or amusing.

In this instance I think we got on to the dichotomy because Silence characterised as faith-based "an appeal ... to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp" and Steve001 responded by pointing to the track record of science. I'm guessing that was essentially a misunderstanding of what Silence meant. I assume he meant the faith of materialists that science would explain anomalous phenomena in materialistic terms.

First thing like to clear up is materialism is only important to philosophers. Most pure scientists could not care less about it. And it's a pejorative label applied by those whom don't like the implications of materialism. 

Let's do a gedankenerfahrung. Pick any immaterialistic anamolous phenomenon (ImAP). Let's assume repeated observations are made. From those observations a hypothesis is formulated. Now the hypothesis is tested and shown to be a good description of the nature of this particular ImAP.  Now from that hypothesis a full theory is developed and further tested to see if it remains a true description - it does. Now the question is, does that ImAP continue to be a ImAP?

Cast your mind back to the days when scientists believed things that we now know to not be true.  Can you really see scientists' conclusions being the same in years to come as they are now?   I don't understand why my post didn't make sense to you.

The major exception between scientists of the 19th century and earlier is science was a rather singular pursuit when compared to science practiced in th 20th-21st centuries. And certainly persuing science all by ones self can lead to wrong conclusions. I think the axiom "two heads are better than one" applies here because science as practiced today is entirely collaborative. For example there are about 11500 professional physicists just working at Cern alone. Astronomers, 10000 worldwide not including amateur which also contribute to knowledge. And let's not forget the applied scientists and commercial research scientists. All of them using evermore precise machines to delve deeper into the mysteries of nature. Will in the case of physics a more fundamental theory arise, perhaps, but it probably won't overturn our current theories but only add to our understanding of how nature works.

I'm not religious but I'll be damned if I'm going to have a hang up about using the word God just because you guys think it's naïve/irrational or amusing.

It is true that the versions put forwards by some (Malf perhaps?) are indeed naïve/irrational or amusing. However when there is an attempt to insert such nonsense as part of an argument it is no longer amusing, but simply - irrational. The sceptics undermine their own credibility each time this happens - not least because it indicates they are not here to learn or seriously enter a discussion. Silly quips do eventually lose their charm - if there was any at the outset.

I assume he meant the faith of materialists that science would explain anomalous phenomena in materialistic terms.

That is what I intended but did not say as eloquently as you, Chris.  Thanks.

First thing like to clear up is materialism is only important to philosophers. Most pure scientists could not care less about it. And it's a pejorative label applied by those whom don't like the implications of materialism. 

Let's do a gedankenerfahrung. Pick any immaterialistic anamolous phenomenon (ImAP). Let's assume repeated observations are made. From those observations a hypothesis is formulated. Now the hypothesis is tested and shown to be a good description of the nature of this particular ImAP.  Now from that hypothesis a full theory is developed and further tested to see if it remains a true description - it does. Now the question is, does that ImAP continue to be a ImAP?

I think the answer would be that it wouldn't be anomalous any more, but it might still be immaterialistic - depending, of course, whether the theory that had been successfully been developed to explain it was immaterialistic.

But the point I was making is that I don't think Silence was criticising a reliance on science as such - but only the assumption that science would eventually come up with a materialistic explanation for everything. My own feeling is that if one needs to go beyond materialism for explanations (and I think we should remember that some anomalists don't necessarily believe we do, even if the explanations require modifications of physics as currently understood), then science is still the best methodology we have for seeking those explanations. In other words, the scientific method isn't limited to materialistic phenomena.