ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #3881
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,382
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
How many god myths do you need to demonstrate before you stop looking for gap gods.
The by-the-book answer is that you have to consider "gap gods" as a possibility every time you consider something that has been attributed to gods, and if science wants to eliminate that possibility in any applicable case it has to specifically control for it. Of course science doesn't actually operate that way. The more appropriate stick-and-rudder answer is that science gets to consider a priori plausibility based on the gestalt of past findings. For example, in testing electromagnetic phenomena, we stopped having to expressly test for and rule out luminiferous ether a long time ago.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:04 PM   #3882
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,474
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The by-the-book answer is that you have to consider "gap gods" as a possibility every time you consider something that has been attributed to gods, and if science wants to eliminate that possibility in any applicable case it has to specifically control for it. Of course science doesn't actually operate that way. The more appropriate stick-and-rudder answer is that science gets to consider a priori plausibility based on the gestalt of past findings. For example, in testing electromagnetic phenomena, we stopped having to expressly test for and rule out luminiferous ether a long time ago.
Yes it's interesting that there's no Ether-of-the-gaps theory.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:06 PM   #3883
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,421
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The by-the-book answer is that you have to consider "gap gods" as a possibility every time you consider something that has been attributed to gods, and if science wants to eliminate that possibility in any applicable case it has to specifically control for it. Of course science doesn't actually operate that way. The more appropriate stick-and-rudder answer is that science gets to consider a priori plausibility based on the gestalt of past findings. For example, in testing electromagnetic phenomena, we stopped having to expressly test for and rule out luminiferous ether a long time ago.
Well said, except I think you might say 'knee-jerk' answer rather than by-the-book answer. What book would that be?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:10 PM   #3884
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,382
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Well said, except I think you might say 'knee-jerk' answer rather than by-the-book answer. What book would that be?
I will accept that correction. Thank you.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:14 PM   #3885
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,353
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I called it a conceivable reason. My evidence for that is that many people have conceived it as a reason since time immemorial and continue to do so today.
fair enough

Quote:
That said, when did "X must be shown to exist before it can be postulated as a reason for observed phenomenon Y" get added to the Rules of Science?

Erwin Schroedinger certainly wasn't following any such rule, when he helped kick off the search for the material basis of genetics in 1944 by suggesting the heredity substance must be an "aperiodic crystal" despite no such crystal being known to exist at the time. (There are more obvious examples—hi again, cosmologists!—but that one is really cool.)
hmm. Is that different somehow? I don't pretend to understand or know anything about that, but presumably making predictions in science based on some firm premises and calculations and following that to some logical conclusion that predicts something that should exist in nature is different to just including a God (and everything else we could make up) in all the possible solutions. Certainly I am not incorrect in guessing that that would also have been a falsifiable predication in science. Presumably Schroedinger didn't say the heredity substance must be an "aperiodic crystal", or a God.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:30 AM   #3886
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,570
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The issue raised by the OP is the question of generalizing from experience.

We examine a volcano and find that it's caused by subterranean heat and pressure, rather than by the anger of a volcano god. We examine fifty volcanos and find that all of them are caused by subterranean heat and pressure, and not one by the anger of volcano gods. But then a new volcano erupts somewhere that we've never examined before. Can we say with any confidence that that one's also caused by subterranean heat and pressure, and not by the anger of a volcano god?

Most people (nowadays) would say yes, though some of them would also caution against absolute certainty, and suggest we should probably go there and take a few measurements.

Now instead of fifty volcanos, let's say we've investigated the causes of fifty different natural phenomena. In all cases where we could identify causes, we found causes other than gods. How justifiable, how rational, is the conclusion that no natural phenomena are caused by gods?

*snip for brevity*
I basically agree with your post, but I think objectivity goes for both sides. Not only do we invariably find physical explanations for those phenomena we investigate, but we find no evidence for gods. So even if the 51th volcano is not due to the usual mechanisms, it would not make any immediate sense to attribute it to volcano gods. This is a false dichotomy we often see in such debates: "If you can't explain this, then I am right."

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:30 AM   #3887
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,490
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I've explained my argument at least three times in detail. Stay on the ball, if you please. If someone says he's an expert mechanic and tells you authoritatively what's wrong with your car, that judgment might be questioned if, when asked to verify the operation of the throwout bearing, he pulls the dipstick out of the coolant reservoir.
What expert are you talking about? Do I have to agree with you because you are a self-procalma expert? If you are an expert, answer what I ask you with arguments and data. Can you give an example of that science that develops outside the published scientific literature?
Then we will have something to discuss. Otherwise we don't anything that turn around your empty claims.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:48 AM   #3888
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,490
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
hmm. Is that different somehow? I don't pretend to understand or know anything about that, but presumably making predictions in science based on some firm premises and calculations and following that to some logical conclusion that predicts something that should exist in nature is different to just including a God (and everything else we could make up) in all the possible solutions. Certainly I am not incorrect in guessing that that would also have been a falsifiable predication in science. Presumably Schroedinger didn't say the heredity substance must be an "aperiodic crystal", or a God.
Refuting factual claims of religions is relatively easy. Science has done this many times and common sense has done it other times.

But religion has taken refuge in ways that escape the scrutiny of science. This resource has always existed. Even before science existed, when a religion was pressured by philosophical-rational thought got shield in subjective.
Such religions cannot be refuted by science. It takes refuge in the personal and subjective, in faith or its supposed manifestation in private places.
This type of belief can only be defeated by a rationality that relies on science when necessary, but adopts its own resources when necessary. This type of thinking is what is traditionally called philosophy. That of Holbach, Feuerbach, Russell, Diderot, Sartre and many others, even those which without being strictly atheists ("Gnostic atheists") such as Rousseau have given elements of criticism against the pretensions of religion from septicism or rationality.

And that is what awakens the anger of the dogmatic positivists of this forum. Because anything that is not atheir point of view is the demon personified.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:00 AM   #3889
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,141
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Can you give an example of that science that develops outside the published scientific literature?
Speaking as a professional scientist, that's an utterly bizarre question. Published papers are, generally speaking, a summary of significant experimental results and their integration into theories. The process of scientific enquiry does not start with the writing of the first word of a paper; it starts with determining an area of enquiry, then moves on to carrying out the actual work in that area, understanding the results of that work, feeding them back into further work and repeating the cycle as necessary in order to know what it is that the paper is supposed to summarise. It may be different in philosophy; hence, I suppose, the well-known joke that a theoretical physics department is more expensive than a phiilosophy department because the former needs pencils, paper and erasers, whereas the latter only needs pencils and paper. But the supposition that published papers form the totality of science seems rooted in so deep a misunderstanding of what science is, that it seems futile even to try and correct it; there's simply no basis of common understanding from which to start.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.