Does Science disprove the existence of the soul?

[davidv]

All evidences are in favor of materialism.

Only if confirmation bias irrationally limits what is considered evidence.

There is no soul in us.

Unsupported opinion.

There is even center in our brains for creation of sense of self. There are two problems here though, the problem of consciousness and the problem of free will. That might means that we don’t know matter well yet.

 

[STT]

Only if confirmation bias irrationally limits what is considered evidence.

Unsupported opinion.

What is the soul supposed to offer if there is a center in a brain which creates the sense of self?

 

[o_mlly]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

If one cannot measure it then one cannot science it. Can’t put a tape measure on a soul.

 

[Bonnie]

If one cannot measure it then one cannot science it. Can’t put a tape measure on a soul.

I love “science” being used as a verb. Did that start with Matt Damon’s famous line in The Martian?

That said, I agree. I don’t know why some people think science ought to be able to prove the existence of non-physical things.

 

[meltzerboy]

I love “science” being used as a verb. Did that start with Matt Damon’s famous line in The Martian?

That said, I agree. I don’t know why some people think science ought to be able to prove the existence of non-physical things.

I had a graduate professor who preferred the term “sciencing” to that of “science,” the reason being that the former expression focused on the active process of science, which involves change.

 

[IWantGod]

If one cannot measure it then one cannot science it. Can’t put a tape measure on a soul.

But if ideas, thoughts, self awareness and intellect, can be essentially reduced to physical processes alone, then there is no need to speak of a soul. Its meaningless.

 

[PseuTonym]

If one cannot measure it then one cannot science it. Can’t put a tape measure on a soul.

Can you measure the quality of a paper published in an academic journal devoted to science? If you cannot, then there is no way to distinguish between garbage and a contribution to science.

Is “science” a non-scientific concept?

 

[o_mlly]

Can you measure the quality of a paper published in an academic journal devoted to science? If you cannot, then there is no way to distinguish between garbage and a contribution to science.

Is “science” a non-scientific concept?

The objective quality of the sample is measurable only as the sample numerically relates to certain measurable attributes of the agreed standard. The quantified attributes of the sample are compared to the standard’s attributes in one or more statistical methods.

Absent the standard with measurable attributes, statements about the quality of any sample can only be subjective.

 

[PseuTonym]

The objective quality of the sample is measurable only as the sample numerically relates to certain measurable attributes of the agreed standard. The quantified attributes of the sample are compared to the standard’s attributes in one or more statistical methods.

Absent the standard with measurable attributes, statements about the quality of any sample can only be subjective.

It looks as though you will have more luck trying to distinguish between noise and music than trying to distinguish between garbage text and papers that are high-quality contributions to science.

There are noteworthy papers that are important in the history of science, but none of them is an agreed upon standard. Furthermore, nobody is going to waste time trying to perform a statistical analysis of word frequencies or sentence structures. Mimicking important papers in the history of science isn’t going to make your contribution important.

Why would anybody learn a language without any hope of saying anything that is interesting or important?

 

[o_mlly]

…There are noteworthy papers that are important in the history of science, …

Can you back that claim up with some facts or is that just your opinion, i.e. subjective judgment?

Furthermore, nobody is going to waste time trying to perform a statistical analysis of word frequencies or sentence structures. Mimicking important papers in the history of science isn’t going to make your contribution important.

Why would anybody learn a language without any hope of saying anything that is interesting or important?

Word frequencies seems banal but perhaps the number of times the paper has been cited in subsequent papers is more meaningful?

 

[davidv]

But if ideas, thoughts, self awareness and intellect, can be essentially reduced to physical processes alone, then there is no need to speak of a soul. Its meaningless.

Is there any scientific evidence that this “if” is a possibility?

 

[Richca]

Today’s science makes the claim that sentience in animals and man is not a difference in kind but instead degree; Implying that animals and humans have spiritual souls or that sentience is a physical manifestation which has developed gradually through a process of evolution.

What are your thoughts?

The word ‘sentient’ indicates to discern or perceive by sense or sensible impressions such as through the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. The sense life is not what distinguishes human beings from all the other animals. Human beings have a sense life in common with the brute animals at least the more perfect animals. Thus, human beings are traditionally defined as a rational animal. The word ‘rational’ is what distinguishes humans from the brute animals. Besides the sensory life and the sensory powers of the soul which humans have in common with animals, human beings possess the spiritual powers of intellect or reason and will. Animals have souls but not spiritual souls. Only human beings among all the animals of the earth possess immortal spiritual souls due to their spiritual powers of intellect and will which spiritual powers humans have in common with the angels. So, human beings are sometimes called a little world unto themselves in that they are a composite of spirit which humans have in common with the wholly spiritual angelic world and of body which is a part of the corporeal and physical world. Technically, it is a kind of confusion of terms to lump together sentience and spiritual. Spirits, such as humans, angels, and God, have intelligence and will and intelligence and will are wholly spiritual operations. Sentience refers more to the sense life found in animals including humans and this involves the sensory powers of the soul operating through some corporeal organ or organs or forces of the body so that it is not a wholly spiritual operation but an operation involving the soul and body together.