On scientism

[JDaniel]

If the scientist has directly observed the contrary happening then he can flatly say the metaphysician who said such a thing was “impossible” is wrong. Even if the contrary is not directly observed, but only inductively inferred, he can still take the metaphysician’s view as a hypothesis which can be tested, insofar as it makes a prediction, and evaluate it on that basis, and find it highly unlikely, which is what “disproved” means in science most often.

And I am saying that when metaphysics makes empirical predictions it moves over into the domain of empirical science, and cannot expect to insulate itself from the scientific method and verification or disproof.

Science isn’t restricted by methodological “naturalism” either, although the definition of “naturalism” is somewhat hazy. Science can entertain as a hypothesis, for instance, that angels are pushing the planets and stars around.

Yes, it is the case.

The “quantum nothingness” makes the event possible, yes. That doesn’t mean that “quantum nothingness” can be in any sense held to be an efficient cause without changing the meaning of the term as metaphysicians understand it. It is an irreducibly random event, as best as we can tell. Local hidden variable theories have been disproven. An irreducibly random event can have no “cause”. Or, to use more metaphysical language, yes, the quantum vacuum provides the potency for a virtual particle to arise, but it does not provide the act, the potency’s reduction to act appears out of nowhere, unexplained and uncaused.

Yeah, but come on, all interpretations of QM cause some problems.

Well the natural sciences can just say, we don’t know, but shut up and calculate. But the metaphysics will say a particle is supposed to have a definite place and a definite velocity, and it should not matter whether we bother to measure it or not.

I disagree, and let’s not equivocate on “interpretation”. The “interpretation” of observation in the natural sciences is analysis of whether a given hypothesis is supported or disproven. This is done via mathematics, not dependent on one’s metaphysical view. Now of course we have the Copenhagen “interpretation” of QM, the many-worlds “interpretation” of QM, etc., this is not what I mean by “interpretation”; these are not scientific interpretations.

Now I would ask do you agree that a metaphysical prediction can be falsified using the scientific method?

I agree with this.

This is a metaphysical assumption science must make, along with the other disciplines, yes.

NowAgnostic:

You have to know that I would ask the next questions: “What exactly is a ‘virtual particle’”?Have scientists laid eyes on one yet? Do we have a super microscope I don’t know about? If these quantum fluctuation thingys have less substantial proof than an electron, how are we to know that they are “matter” and not just some energy discharge?

Why are they spoken of as virtual?

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

We need not worry about whether the “seagull” is an essence (a universal), or merely a human classification, to do the science. As long as a “seagull” is well defined, we can verify or disprove predictions about them.

Please take everything i have written here in to consideration before making your rebuttal.

Making predictions about behavior, doesn’t actually tell us anything about existence. I cannot prove that anything “extra subjective” exists just because i measure the appearance of things in a manner that is empirical. It seems to me here that you are inadvertently saying that empirical science neither proves, disproves, or has anything to say about, the “truth” of “extra subjective reality” in so far as understanding what exists and what is logically possible. Science doesn’t deal with “being” in terms of “truth”; at least not in terms of epistemological ontology, but rather it deals with things merely as they “appear”. You are making abstractions and judgments about some particular phenomenon on the basis of an empiricism that cannot give us any true knowledge about what is really real and what it means for something to be real. This means that “empirical science” cannot make any real claims in terms of “objective truth”. In other-words, empirical science by itself doesn’t rest on a true epistemology, and is thus necessarily subordinate to mere beliefs, or better yet still, Metaphysics, in so far as we are discussing the truth about “being qua being”.

You might deny this and assert otherwise, but how then does science have the authority to make inferences to “unobservable objects” in terms of “truth” if it doesn’t itself rest on a metaphysical epistemology? If science has no epistemological authority about the contents of existence, it cannot make any legitimate claims about objects that lie beyond observation; because science doesn’t ever prove anything in the true sense of the term. You made an appeal to “Mathematics”, but by itself it is not empirical or epistemological and it certainly doesn’t have any metaphysical authority in terms of what exists in the extra-subjective. Of coarse we can make predictions all day, but it amounts to nothing if we cannot provide a basis for saying that such and such is epistemologically real; and insofar as epistemological considerations rest solely on metaphysics, it cannot avoid the absolute authority of logic. Thus scientific theories that state contradictory things, such as quantum events coming out of absolutely nothing with out an efficient cause, cannot have any meaningful authority in terms of truth.

All you have said so far, is that you are prepared to take empirical science for granted and forget its necessary foundations for the sake of some unscientific agenda; but this is a false science. It is called “scientism”.

You are probably wondering right now what the heck i am talking about, but thats not surprising given that you really don’t have any idea about what you’re talking about either, especially when you talk about metaphysics or even science for that matter; since you seem to think that science has epistemological virtue and authority over all other forms of inquiry. An informed person knows that they have to be a philosopher first, before they can be a scientist.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well it looks like this is where we part ways because I disagree. One’s metaphysical view is directly relevant to the observation phase of the scientific method. I would even be so bold to assert that the observation is interpreted through metaphysics. This is what John Polkinghorne has been saying for a while now. I would assert that since the observation phase of the scientific method is restricted by metaphysics, I would claim that the scientist is not interpreting his observation correctly. I am really disappointed that you do not see this distinction.

I deny all of the above. Observation is observation. We observe what we observe. Metaphysics is completely irrelevant. The observation is either consistent with a hypothesis or not, because it is what the hypothesis predicted or not; this is what “interpretation” means in empirical science; again, no need for metaphysics, except for a few basic principles I have enumerated earlier, e.g. law of non-contradiction, existence of external, objective reality, etc.

Super duper, I agree. I am referring to claims such as “science has disproved the soul through the Law of Conservation of Energy!” Which is completely absurd, because the Law of Conservation of Energy is a physical law, and has no implication to the immaterial.

I’ve never heard this claim before, but it’s absurd because the existence of a soul does not predict an observable violation of the law of conservation of energy. If it did, then the scientist’s claim would be correct.

I am talking about scientists ruling oustide of their competancy. As soon as science starts to try to push its way into the spiritual domain, we have scientism.

I agree only to a point. When the “spiritual domain” makes empirical predictions, then these become within the competence of empirical science to verify or disprove. If these empirical predictions are not borne out, then **something **went wrong in the practice of theology, philosophy, or metaphysics. It is of course beyond the competency of science as such to say precisely **what **went wrong. Now **then **I would agree science is stepping out of bounds.

Again, if metaphysics can ascertain something for certain, then I assert that the scientist does not have the right to claim otherwise, but rather conclude that he has not interpreted his observations correctly.

Which is asking the scientist to deny what is before his eyes, or else pile on ad hoc assertion after ad hoc assertion to “save” the metaphysical theory.

If science can ascertain something for certain, the metaphysician is restricted by it.

So just how do you propose to resolve the conflict when metaphysics and empirical science are both claiming certainty about contradictory assertions?

For instance, the Church commission that investigated Galileo found the heliocentric theory to be “**philosophically **absurd”.

It is usually part the method. The only exception I can think of is sciences relating to the mind.

Or brain, which is the area of science I am in.

You are in error; the virtual particles appearing in a perfect vacuum are caused by vacuum fluctuation.

No kidding. But what causes the vacuum fluctuation? It’s uncaused and unexplained as far as we can tell.

To borrow an illustration from Quentin Smith:

                   -5     -4     -3     -2     -1     |     1     2     3     4     5

Here is your causality.

In this spontaneous emergence of particles, three particles appear and they destroy each other simultaneously.

I don’t understand your diagram, sorry. But if these particles emergence “spontaneously”, what are they caused by?

There is a difference between not being able to observe it and predict it, and not having it.

There is. So just how do you propose to explain the results of the double-slit experiment if each electron has a definite (even if not predictable or observable) position and momentum, as opposed to the traditional particle-wave duality? You might be able to do so by piling on ad hoc assertion after *ad hoc *assertion. But this kind of reminds me of adding eccentrics and epicycles to save the geocentric hypothesis, adding ad hoc assertion after *ad hoc *assertion. That’s why empirical science deals with likelihoods. The heliocentric hypothesis is preferred on the basis of its simplicity. We now have available much more sophisticated mathematical tools (e.g. evaluation of Bayesian model evidence) to show why the simpler model should be preferred.

So we study dolphins with numbers now? Do we observe chemical reactions with calculators? Even in physics you don’t completely use mathematics. I must disagree with you,

Of course you observe chemical reactions quantitatively. Population genetics uses mathematics. Yes in physics you do completely use mathematics also.

If someone has a metaphysical prediction that is in the realm of science then there is a problem. Hence the term meta (beyond) physics.

Well tell that to the metaphysicians then. If they restrict their metaphysics to where empirical predictions are not made then there will be no problem.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

An informed person knows that they have to be a philosopher first, before they can be a scientist.

thats about the size of it. its unfortunate that science is taught from the earliest grades as though it exists in and of itself, leaving its philosophical origins undiscovered until college, and only then if if you take philosophy and they mention it. i think that such an approach may explain the lack of critical thinking skills in the area though. there is such shock at the notion when you first mention it to someone, its obvious most people are completely unexposed to the idea.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well tell that to the metaphysicians then. If they restrict their metaphysics to where empirical predictions are not made then there will be no problem.

how can you really seperate the 2? they arent separate disciplines, science is founded in metaphysics, it is in fact the branch called natural philosophy that deals with the empirically observable. however that is all it is capable of dealing with, making it intensely limited, of value only in the description of material realities, and only those in so far as may be quantifiable and testable.

fact is that scientists rather often intrude on the other domains of metaphysics, free will, ontology, cosmogony, causality, etc. and they do so blithley in that they seem not to know any better, not haveing any education outside of the scientific method.

a man that has never left the house he was born in might well think that the only thing that exists, is the house. unfortunately, that doesnt expalin the presence of the house.

 

[NowAgnostic]

In other words, you’re saying that the scientists hold all of the cards even though they cannot prove conclusively that the metaphysician is wrong?

Yep, and I can see from your tone here you sense the threat to “traditional” worldviews from empirical science. Scientists can say the metaphysician’s predictions were wrong, and propose a simpler theory which does not rely on piling up ad hoc assertions to save the metaphysician’s theory.

Can you provide an example?

Geocentrism vs. modern astronomy. Quantum mechanics vs. definite position and momentum. An “immaterial” mind uncorrelated with the brain vs. modern neuroscience. The existence of “free” will vs. modern neuroscience (the evidence isn’t as compelling on this one I’ll admit).

Again, it would appear that you are saying that the scientist is somehow judge and jury. He can do whatever he wants, right or wrong. Does that seem OK with you?

He can’t falsify data or observations. But he can test any hypothesis whatsoever which makes empirical predictions, yes.

Metaphysicians actually don’t deal with the subject you mention in the way you think. That subject is dealt with by those who study science down to and at its most general level. This more general science of nature studies mobile being, which is different than the study of immobile being. Metaphysics relinquishes from its considerations any reference to matter whatsoever. The metaphysician’s typical questions are, “what is being, or substance, or cause, or act, or relation.” Such questions apply to all being. They need not exist in matter. In fact, they could exist if there were no matter at all. Metaphysics is the science of being as being period. Now, as a science it studies the cause of its subject, which is being.

That’s all fair enough, but metaphysicians are not imbued with a charism of infallibility. As you say, these questions apply to all being, including material being, and one would expect their theories to be borne out by observation.

Look, there have been plenty of erroneous theories proposed by scientists in the past. They were discarded because the evidence didn’t fit. What would cause a metaphysician to admit his theory was erroneous?

So, how can “quantum nothingness” not be considered to be an efficient cause? - not that I am agreeing that it is. Just for my erudition.

The “quantum nothingness” is the material cause, not the efficient cause; it is the “stuff” from which virtual particles can arise.

The “material” cause is the “stuff” out of which something comes about, whereas the “efficient cause” is the agent which brings it about, right?

Why?

Because there is no prior condition which entails it.

How?

Well because it is possible a random fluctuation will occur.

I don’t believe that is possible.

Of course you don’t, and yet that is what the observations at the quantum level strongly suggest.

Once again, it is not the metaphysician you are talking about, so, why would a metaphysician speak to that? Unless, he is more than a “metaphysican”.

Well, perhaps he is, in which case the problem is not science encroaching upon metaphysics, but metaphysics encroaching upon science.

True, mathematics, induction, deduction, and empirical experimentation. The only problem with mathematics is that it is conceptual rather than empirical.

Why is that a problem?

The only problem with induction is that it must rely of other grounding, it is not something self-evident from the hypothesis.

Bayes’ theorem provides a certain grounding.

How? They deal with different subjects. since when does science deal with immobile being as being?

jd

So what you’re saying is metaphysics should never venture into anything regarding mobile being, and make no predictions?

 

[NowAgnostic]

Please take everything i have written here in to consideration before making your rebuttal.

I certainly will, since I have heard it all before, and it is intellectually dishonest. You will of course not admit it, and then wring your hands over all the “scientism” out there and wonder why scientists have a heck of a lot more credibility than philosophers or metaphysicians.

Making predictions about behavior, doesn’t actually tell us anything about existence. I cannot prove that anything “extra subjective” exists just because i measure the appearance of things in a manner that is empirical. It seems to me here that you are inadvertently saying that empirical science neither proves, disproves, or has anything to say about, the “truth” of “extra subjective reality” in so far as understanding what exists and what is logically possible.

Agreed so far. Science can’t prove these things, it takes them as assumptions necessary for its method, indeed as necessary for all rational thought.

But what follows is the dodge, the last refuge of the metaphysical scoundrel who finds his theories threatened by empirical science - “science only deals with appearances” he chants - which is a lie.

Science doesn’t deal with “being” in terms of “truth”; at least not in terms of epistemological ontology, but rather it deals with things **merely **as they “appear”.

That is what science deals **directly **with, yes; it does not follow that science has **nothing **whatsoever to do with reality and is only concerned **merely **with appearances. This is to assume that appearances have no correlation whatsoever with reality (whereas science assumes just the opposite), which these metaphysicians would never accept in another context (Immanuel Kant, please pick up the courtesy phone!) Apparently metaphysicians believe they can venture into a fantasy land where things are not as they appear when the appearances are not as they would like and contradict their assertions. And that’s intellectual dishonesty.

Next comes the “all or nothing” ploy. Either science must accept everything claimed by metaphysicians or science has no metaphysical underpinnings at all. That’s called the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

You are making abstractions and judgments about some particular phenomenon on the basis of an empiricism that cannot give us any true knowledge about what is really real and what it means for something to be real. This means that “empirical science” cannot make any real claims in terms of “objective truth”.

Now, really. This goes to show the utter silliness of your position. Are you going to maintain that our senses don’t give us “true knowledge”? Are you going to maintain your senses don’t give you true knowledge that you are reading this on a computer screen? And yet these are “empirical observations”.

If you didn’t want to accept that computers could exist based on some metaphysical principle you claimed, you would insist I was making an “abstraction” and “judgment” about the mere “empirical phenomenon” of your observations on your monitor. This would be based on a mere “empiricism” that would not be yielding any “true knowledge of what was real” and you would say that the mere “empirical science” couldn’t be making a real claim about “objective truth” about the reality of the computer.

In other-words, empirical science by itself doesn’t rest on a true epistemology, and is thus necessarily subordinate to mere beliefs, or better yet still, Metaphysics, in so far as we are discussing the truth about “being qua being”.

Wrong. Empirical science needs certain metaphysical **assumptions **to get off the ground, e.g. law of non-contradiction, existence of external, objective reality, and so on. However it does not necessarily need everything that the metaphysicians claim is relevant to being qua being. You want all or nothing. That’s a false dichotomy.

Of coarse we can make predictions all day, but it amounts to nothing if we cannot provide a basis for saying that such and such is epistemologically real; and insofar as epistemological considerations rest solely on metaphysics, it cannot avoid the absolute authority of logic.

Metaphysics is not the same as logic. And just how does metaphysics provide a “basis” for saying such and such is epistemologically real? Metaphysics needs assumptions to get off the ground too.

Thus scientific theories that state contradictory things, such as quantum events coming out of absolutely nothing with out an efficient cause, cannot have any meaningful authority in terms of truth.

There is no **logical **contradiction in something coming to exist without an efficient cause. This is a metaphysical assumption which science doesn’t need.

All you have said so far, is that you are prepared to take empirical science for granted and forget its necessary foundations for the sake of some unscientific agenda; but this is a false science. It is called “scientism”.

I’m not forgetting the foundations of science. You just play the “scientism” card every time science says something you don’t like.

…you seem to think that science has epistemological virtue and authority over all other forms of inquiry.

It sure does when verifying or disproving empirical hypotheses.

An informed person knows that they have to be a philosopher first, before they can be a scientist.

And an educated scientist knows he cannot distort his scientific conclusions to fit the wishes and whims of philosophers.

 

[Fran65]

It sure does when verifying or disproving empirical hypotheses…

So you agree that science has authority only in that particular form of inquiry.

 

[Matthias123]

I deny all of the above. Observation is observation. We observe what we observe. Metaphysics is completely irrelevant. The observation is either consistent with a hypothesis or not, because it is what the hypothesis predicted or not; this is what “interpretation” means in empirical science; again, no need for metaphysics, except for a few basic principles I have enumerated earlier, e.g. law of non-contradiction, existence of external, objective reality, etc.

Metaphysics is relevant to determine the ontological status of the observed phenomenon. Do these observed phenomenon in fact actually exist in reality, but are manifestations of the mind? What are the differences and natures of potentiality and actuality? In particle physics how are we to explain the destruction of the quark? Traditional mechanism holds that the particle at its smallest level is indestructible, if it isn’t, then we need to be able to explain its destruction – since the quark is not indestructible, how then are we to explain the destruction? I think our misunderstanding stems from me not stating correctly the proper place of the metaphysics. If done correctly, the metaphysics should not be predicting things that are empirically verifiable, if it does, and then it runs into the turf of the natural sciences. Although in saying this, I cannot agree that the metaphysics do not influence observation phase of the scientific method.

I’ve never heard this claim before, but it’s absurd because the existence of a soul does not predict an observable violation of the law of conservation of energy. If it did, then the scientist’s claim would be correct.

Not so, because the the Laws of Conservation of energy are physical laws, explaning the transfer of energy into matter and matter into energy, it says nothing about the immaterial creating energy, nor can it.

I agree only to a point. When the “spiritual domain” makes empirical predictions, then these become within the competence of empirical science to verify or disprove. If these empirical predictions are not borne out, then **something **went wrong in the practice of theology, philosophy, or metaphysics. It is of course beyond the competency of science as such to say precisely **what **went wrong. Now **then **I would agree science is stepping out of bounds.

Partialy agree, see above.

Which is asking the scientist to deny what is before his eyes, or else pile on ad hoc assertion after ad hoc assertion to “save” the metaphysical theory.

No, it is not, it is asking him to think about what he saw, to see if in fact he interpreted his observation wrong.

So just how do you propose to resolve the conflict when metaphysics and empirical science are both claiming certainty about contradictory assertions?

It would be conceded to the natural sciences as long as it doesn’t result in a reductio ad absurdum.

For instance, the Church commission that investigated Galileo found the heliocentric theory to be “**philosophically **absurd”.

This is not completely correct; the Jesuits had legitimate objections, one being the absence of the pallorax shift. He was not to teach his theory as fact until he had proved it with certainty.

No kidding. But what causes the vacuum fluctuation? It’s uncaused and unexplained as far as we can tell.

It is caused by the tranfer of vacuum energy, and this has a cause just like any other transfer of energy. Secondly I doubt they are even make out of matter, they are most likely just energy.

I don’t understand your diagram, sorry. But if these particles emergence “spontaneously”, what are they caused by?

Diagram is flawed

There is. So just how do you propose to explain the results of the double-slit experiment if each electron has a definite (even if not predictable or observable) position and momentum, as opposed to the traditional particle-wave duality? You might be able to do so by piling on ad hoc assertion after *ad hoc *assertion. But this kind of reminds me of adding eccentrics and epicycles to save the geocentric hypothesis, adding ad hoc assertion after *ad hoc *assertion. That’s why empirical science deals with likelihoods. The heliocentric hypothesis is preferred on the basis of its simplicity. We now have available much more sophisticated mathematical tools (e.g. evaluation of Bayesian model evidence) to show why the simpler model should be preferred.

I know very little about this experiment. I would assert that there must be both a velocity and momentum, even though we can’t predict it. I yield to you, because you obviously know what you are talking about on this experiment.

Of course you observe chemical reactions quantitatively. Population genetics uses mathematics. Yes in physics you do completely use mathematics also.

There is a differences between observing them with abstract mathematical objects in your mind and watching them with your eyes.

Yes in physics you do completely use mathematics also.

Perhaps recently because we lack the tools to observe them with our senses. The point is something is observing it, whether it be your eyes, or a machine made to collect data.

Well tell that to the metaphysicians then. If they restrict their metaphysics to where empirical predictions are not made then there will be no problem.

See above

 

[Matthias123]

Yep, and I can see from your tone here you sense the threat to “traditional” worldviews from empirical science.

From your tone it seems that you really want to believe that Catholics feel under thread from empirical science.

An “immaterial” mind uncorrelated with the brain vs. modern neuroscience. The existence of “free” will vs. modern neuroscience (the evidence isn’t as compelling on this one I’ll admit).

This one I object to – as you seem to speak as the mind body problem as been solved. Modern neuroscience can explain the specifics of the brain, but it is not going to solve the mind body problem. Like I posted before, if there are philosophical problems concerning the activity of thee whole, describing in detail how the parts work, will not resolve these issues – thus the mind-brain problem can’t be filled, it can only be bridged.

Take for example the idea of matter, is this idea also made out of matter? If it is, how are you able to know matter, because the idea would be made out of what you are trying to know?

Look, there have been plenty of erroneous theories proposed by scientists in the past. They were discarded because the evidence didn’t fit. What would cause a metaphysician to admit his theory was erroneous?

If the logic failed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

when will people get it through their heads that science is just a branch of metaphysics? specifically natural philosophy?

it is great for things that are quantifiable, observable but not so much for things like free will, causality, ontology, cosmogony?

they have different realms of inquiry, with little overlap. if i want to know how light transmits in media other than a vacuum, i ask a scientist. if i want to know the nature of the necessary/contingent relationship of beings, i ask a metaphysician.

people are educated only in the scientific method anymore, its not until college philosophy that one learns the relationship between science and metaphysics. funny, but now that i think about it, thats about the same time my own atheism began to die. i dont know but maybe it began to die when i realized that as useful as science is, it doesnt answer some of the most important,or at least interesting questions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

And an educated scientist knows he cannot distort his scientific conclusions to fit the wishes and whims of philosophers.

You obviously find my whole arguement very threatening, so much so that you had to admit the truth of what i said about the limits of science (because its quite simply unbeatable), but then you create this fantasy about me creating false dichotomies when you realized that my successful rebuttal left a giant gaping epistemological whole where scientism use to sit; an abyss in fact, where the legitimacy and primacy of metaphysics and logic fits in quite snuggly since its the only thing that will plug the whole. How very sad. Are you here to learn or dictate your false dogmatic scientism?

You know i am right! So instead of making up conspiracy theories, creating false definitions, putting words in to my mouth, and twisting my arguments to suit you, maybe you should humbly accept that my arguement made some very strong points that you are now having great difficulty to counteract.

I am talking about “epistemological principles”. These are principles that you cannot ignore, regardless of whether or not you believe that the universe is real. You your self said that science relies upon metaphysics and beliefs, to get of the ground, so why would you think that science has the epistemological authority to redefine logic as it sees fit, making false interpretations involving contradictions about a reality that transcends its empirical grasp in regards to the ontological truth of things? Your denial of metaphysics amounts to nothing more then denial.

Your assertion that science can now define the rules as it sees fit has no basis in reason or empiricism, and this fact exposes the degrees of denial that is engulfing the scientific enterprise as we know it. No scientific theory has ever truly proven that something can come out of nothing by itself. Its a logical contradiction, a metaphysical contradiction, and its a contradiction that has no epistemological authority regarding the truth about reality. You cannot measure “nothing”; thus it cannot be a true object of empirical observation, which means that they cannot include it as a legitimate explanation in so far as empiricism is concerned; and if it is observed that an object suddenly appears, scientists can only assume, as “scientists” (rather then as celebrity atheists), that it came from another being, because thats their epistemological limit in regards to the authority of the natural sciences. If they cannot find such a being, then they must admit that science has reached its authoritative limits. They can only say that physics cannot possibly explain the phenomenon.

To say that something came from nothing is purely a philosophical interpretation of empirical data, and gives us no empirical evidence of its truth whatsoever. Its just an assertion made by a desperate naturalist peddling mere appearances in order to undermine the foundations of logic; because they know that as soon as they admit the limitations of science and the primacy of metaphysics, its game-over for naturalism. While scientists can certainly make the claim that objects may move according to some unknown principle that doesn’t follow the classical understanding of physics such as mere cause and effect – since there is no inherent logical contradiction in the idea that some being has its own principle of motion in respect of its existential environment and given nature – it cannot escape the necessity of an “existential cause”; for out of nothing comes nothing. And only somebody trying to hijack science in defense of naturalism would abuse “Quantum Physics” in the attempt to push such illogical rubbish. The level of deception perpetrated by the followers of scientism, is absolutely disgusting and threatens to undermine true empiricism.

End Of Story.

 

[Matthias123]

Wow , now that was a rebuttal! Am I allowed to take back the concessions I made in my rebuttal?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Wow , now that was a rebuttal! Am I allowed to take back the concessions I made in my rebuttal?

Glory to the father in heaven forever and ever; amen and God bless you Matthias.

Time for bed. Good night.

 

[MindOverMatter]

i dont know but maybe it began to die when i realized that as useful as science is, it doesnt answer some of the most important,or at least interesting questions.

You have touched on something that really frustrates me and upsets me. There is a great poverty in modern learning in terms of showing the good of metaphysics and theism; and its getting worse.

Godbless you Warpspeedpetey and good night.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wow , now that was a rebuttal! Am I allowed to take back the concessions I made in my rebuttal?

yup, MoM knows how to sort them out doesnt he? quite enjoyable

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have touched on something that really frustrates me and upsets me. There is a great poverty in modern learning in terms of showing the good of metaphysics and theism; and its getting worse.

Godbless you Warpspeedpetey and good night.

goodnight buddy.

 

[NowAgnostic]

So you agree that science has authority only in that particular form of inquiry.

Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Metaphysics is relevant to determine the ontological status of the observed phenomenon… I think our misunderstanding stems from me not stating correctly the proper place of the metaphysics. If done correctly, the metaphysics should not be predicting things that are empirically verifiable, if it does, and then it runs into the turf of the natural sciences.

I’m happy to leave it to the metaphysicians to argue about ontological statuses if they don’t make predictions.

Although in saying this, I cannot agree that the metaphysics do not influence observation phase of the scientific method.

Beyond the fact that science assumes an external, objective reality, you have not shown how.

Not so, because the the Laws of Conservation of energy are physical laws, explaning the transfer of energy into matter and matter into energy, it says nothing about the immaterial creating energy, nor can it.

Look, if the existence of a soul entailed a violation of the law of conservation of energy, and if such a violation were not empirically detected, if energy in fact was conserved when the existence of a soul would have implied it should not be, then the existence of a soul would be disproven. I cannot see why you would argue with this; it seems self-evident.

No, it is not, it is asking him to think about what he saw, to see if in fact he interpreted his observation wrong…

It would be conceded to the natural sciences as long as it doesn’t result in a reductio ad absurdum.

OK, it is fair to ask him to re-examine whether in fact it does not jive with the metaphysical prediction, but if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t.

This is not completely correct…

It is completely correct, the earth’s motion was condemned by the Holy Office as “philosophically” absurd.

It is caused by the tranfer of vacuum energy, and this has a cause just like any other transfer of energy. Secondly I doubt they are even make out of matter, they are most likely just energy.

There is no energy to “transfer” in a vacuum state, it’s the lowest energy state by definition! Where does it come from, if it doesn’t just appear out of nowhere!

I know very little about this experiment. I would assert that there must be both a velocity and momentum, even though we can’t predict it. I yield to you, because you obviously know what you are talking about on this experiment.

Well you can salvage a definite position and momentum if you adhere to the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then you have an unpredictable “pilot wave” or environment which causes the electrons to go where they go.

There is a differences between observing them with abstract mathematical objects in your mind and watching them with your eyes.

Perhaps recently because we lack the tools to observe them with our senses. The point is something is observing it, whether it be your eyes, or a machine made to collect data.

I don’t quite understand your point here. Science is done using mathematics.

From your tone it seems that you really want to believe that Catholics feel under thread from empirical science.

Some Catholics certainly do. Others may not. It’s neither here nor there.

This one I object to – as you seem to speak as the mind body problem as been solved. Modern neuroscience can explain the specifics of the brain, but it is not going to solve the mind body problem. Like I posted before, if there are philosophical problems concerning the activity of thee whole, describing in detail how the parts work, will not resolve these issues – thus the mind-brain problem can’t be filled, it can only be bridged.

That had nothing to do with the mind-brain problem. Modern neuroscience shows that every activity of the “mind” has a physical correlate which refutes specific theories of the soul (not to be confused with the soul’s existence itself) which posit “immaterial” activities independent of matter.

Take for example the idea of matter, is this idea also made out of matter? If it is, how are you able to know matter, because the idea would be made out of what you are trying to know?

And do ideas exist independently of people having them? Etc., etc. I am more than happy to leave these sorts of questions to the philosophers since they make no empirical predictions.

 

[Matthias123]

I’m happy to leave it to the metaphysicians to argue about ontological statuses if they don’t make predictions.

Explain please

Beyond the fact that science assumes an external, objective reality, you have not shown how.

I will form an argument a bit later on this, as I am in class right now.

Look, if the existence of a soul entailed a violation of the law of conservation of energy, and if such a violation were not empirically detected, if energy in fact was conserved when the existence of a soul would have implied it should not be, then the existence of a soul would be disproven. I cannot see why you would argue with this; it seems self-evident.

agreed

OK, it is fair to ask him to re-examine whether in fact it does not jive with the metaphysical prediction, but if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t.

Agreed as long as it doesn’t result in a logically absurd conclusion. Also there are always non-materialistic explanations that could be possible.

It is completely correct, the earth’s motion was condemned by the Holy Office as “philosophically” absurd.

I bet they did, but that wasn’t the only reason. I understand what you are trying to say though, and I agree.

There is no energy to “transfer” in a vacuum state, it’s the lowest energy state by definition! Where does it come from, if it doesn’t just appear out of nowhere!

It is background energy that is left over from the Big Bang.

I don’t quite understand your point here. Science is done using mathematics.

What about geology? Do we observe rock structures with mathematics.

That had nothing to do with the mind-brain problem. Modern neuroscience shows that every activity of the “mind” has a physical correlate which refutes specific theories of the soul (not to be confused with the soul’s existence itself) which posit “immaterial” activities independent of matter.

I understand and agree.

And do ideas exist independently of people having them? Etc., etc. I am more than happy to leave these sorts of questions to the philosophers since they make no empirical predictions

.

Agreed