The Greylorn Fallacy

[MindOverMatter2]

On several occasions Greylorn has proven his lack of scientific understanding by suggesting that certain principles such as the indestructible nature of energy, are necessary universal truths of reality; this is to say that the principle applies to anything that could possibly exist and that science has measured this to be true. Although he presents his claim in the language of science, his argument warps the epistemological boundaries of the scientific method and trespasses on metaphysical ground by implying that the law and nature of energy is the very substrate of existence full-stop. He claims that science has proven this, failing to realize that scientific principles and statements operate within a limited context which has nothing to do with having knowledge of all possible things, but rather, having knowledge of physical properties (spatial, measurable finite dimensions, and time). This means that the truth of these statements are only considered truth relative to those objects which fall under the complete definition of physical. Thus his claim has no scientific foundation, and at best are tautologically truths given his own definition of God and being. Physical properties have to fulfill all of the physical definitions in-order to be considered physical, and anything that lay outside that definition is not necessarily subject to the limitations which dominate physical properties. But he continues to claim without any evidence that all possible existences or actions are only meaningful in respect of energy and have to operate through principles pertaining to the nature of energy.

You don’t have to be an expert on science to realize that his claims are not scientific in nature and are certainly not verifiable through the scientific method. His claims, whether he realizes it or not, are metaphysical claims (in so far as he claims absolute knowledge that the substrate of being itself is governed by the laws of energy, and therefore energy governs all possibilities) and thus his ideas are subject to the rules of metaphysical discourse, not science.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The title of this threads seems to violate the forum code of conduct against personal attacks and is less than charitable. I think there are friendlier ways to go about discussing this view point.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The title of this threads seems to violate the forum code of conduct against personal attacks and is less than charitable. I think there are friendlier ways to go about discussing this view point.

Its not a personal attack, no more than lets say “The Dawkins Delusion”, which is a good book and an apt title. But if it does violate the forum rules, then i am sure the administrators are good at doing their own job and will delete the thread accordingly without your help.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no doubt that science is based on metascientific principles which cannot be observed scientifically! Real knowledge begins before science even exists…

 

[Shike]

Sounds like your average case of Theoretical Scientism to me.

It’s best to study up on it because it seems like so many people today are taken in by the theory.

I have recently been involved in conversations that employ this stuff. It’s a lot of work because it seems like a whole world-view needs to be dismantled before any progress can be made in other philosophical areas.

Anyways, sounds like you put a lot of thought into the description and it seems pretty good.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

On several occasions Greylorn has proven his lack of scientific understanding by suggesting that certain principles such as the indestructible nature of energy, are necessary universal truths of reality; this is to say that the principle applies to anything that could possibly exist and that science has measured this to be true. Although he presents his claim in the language of science, his argument warps the epistemological boundaries of the scientific method and trespasses on metaphysical ground by implying that the law and nature of energy is the very substrate of existence full-stop. He claims that science has proven this, failing to realize that scientific principles and statements operate within a limited context which has nothing to do with having knowledge of all possible things, but rather, having knowledge of physical properties (spatial, measurable finite dimensions, and time). This means that the truth of these statements are only considered truth relative to those objects which fall under the complete definition of physical. Thus his claim has no scientific foundation, and at best are tautologically truths given his own definition of God and being. Physical properties have to fulfill all of the physical definitions in-order to be considered physical, and anything that lay outside that definition is not necessarily subject to the limitations which dominate physical properties. But he continues to claim without any evidence that all possible existences or actions are only meaningful in respect of energy and have to operate through principles pertaining to the nature of energy.

You don’t have to be an expert on science to realize that his claims are not scientific in nature and are certainly not verifiable through the scientific method. His claims, whether he realizes it or not, are metaphysical claims (in so far as he claims absolute knowledge that the substrate of being itself is governed by the laws of energy, and therefore energy governs all possibilities) and thus his ideas are subject to the rules of metaphysical discourse, not science.

My O My, Look at how smart I am! What does this have to do with religion, and in particular Roman Catholicism?

 

[Shike]

My O My, Look at how smart I am! What does this have to do with religion, and in particular Roman Catholicism?

First of all this is the philosophy sub-forum. His point deals with philosophy so it is very much welcome here. Second of all if you accept some of these views then it would be very hard (logically speaking) to be Catholic.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

First of all this is the philosophy sub-forum. His point deals with philosophy so it is very much welcome here. Second of all if you accept some of these views then it would be very hard (logically speaking) to be Catholic.

Not worthy of a retort

 

[tonyrey]

“My O My, Look at how smart I am! What does this have to do with religion, and in particular Roman Catholicism?” …

Not worthy of a retort on a **philosophy **forum…

 

[greylorn]

On several occasions Greylorn has proven his lack of scientific understanding by suggesting that certain principles such as the indestructible nature of energy, are necessary universal truths of reality; this is to say that the principle applies to anything that could possibly exist and that science has measured this to be true. Although he presents his claim in the language of science, his argument warps the epistemological boundaries of the scientific method and **trespasses on metaphysical ground **by implying that the law and nature of energy is the very substrate of existence full-stop. He claims that science has proven this, failing to realize that scientific principles and statements operate within a limited context which has nothing to do with having knowledge of all possible things, but rather, having knowledge of physical properties… This means that the truth of these statements are only considered truth relative to those objects which fall under the complete definition of physical. Thus his claim has no scientific foundation, and at best are tautologically truths given his own definition of God and being. Physical properties have to fulfill all of the physical definitions in-order to be considered physical, and anything that lay outside that definition is not necessarily subject to the limitations which dominate physical properties. But he continues to claim without any evidence that all possible existences or actions are only meaningful in respect of energy and have to operate through principles pertaining to the nature of energy.

You don’t have to be an expert on science to realize that his claims are not scientific in nature and are certainly not verifiable through the scientific method. His claims…are metaphysical claims (in so far as he claims absolute knowledge that the substrate of being itself is governed by the laws of energy, and therefore energy governs all possibilities) and thus his ideas are subject to the rules of metaphysical discourse, not science.

A reply seems to be warranted.

I’m looking for answers to fundamental questions such as,

• The origin of the universe.
• Was deliberate, intelligent engineering involved in the creation process?
• If so (my long-standing hypothesis), what are the properties of the creator?
• And of course, what is the purpose of creation?
• What is the mechanism involved in human consciousness?
• If remotely “soul-like,” what might the work and destiny of an individual be?
• How might these be realized in the materially embodied state?
• What is the relationship between the Creator and the properties of the stuff of the universe?
• Is our understanding of physics consistent with our understanding of the creator?
• Can it be made consistent?
• If so, what laws of physics are we leaving undiscovered that define the relationship between spirit and physical form?

In my search I use every possible method. I’ve stated my limitations and credentials. I know some science but am not a scientist. Physics is my favorite. My career was mostly in the support of astronomy and other scientific disciplines, from which I learned. I read a variety of scientific material from disciplines outside physics, and have experimented effectively in applied psychology and touch healing.

The techniques I use to deal with ideas are a combination of classical physics, speculation, and some logic to connect the science with the speculations. I am careful about using real laws of physics (such as conservation of energy) and am not afraid to generalize them into areas where no scientist would dare tread— such as the application of a physical (or logical) principle to understanding the nature of God.

Unscientific? Probably— but hardly less so than extrapolating velocity measurements into Big Bang theory, or believing that life self-assembled from dirt.

Essentially, the work I do is called metaphysics, but the approach I take to it is more physics-dependent than the usual. Accusing me of trespassing in the subject is like blaming a farmer for walking in the same field where he’s trying to grow crops.

The OP’s real complaint, I guess, is that he dislikes my results. To retaliate, he attacks my methods. Kind of sneaky, but what else is an intellectual dogmatist to do?

My conclusions trespass freely upon a number of disciplines and belief systems. They affect fundamental dogmas of physics as well as those of all religions. If proven even remotely true,they will change the paradigms of psychology, neuroscience, biology, education, social sciences, and politics. With luck they will forever discredit atheism as a viable belief system, and relegate the philosophers who have promoted it to their deserved status as dreadfully ignorant nitwits incapable of honest critical thinking.

No where in any science book or essay I’ve read, or course I’ve taken, did I see a No Trespassing sign.

I am certain that my conclusions are founded on legitimate, conservative physics principles, and connected with honest logic. I am equally certain that because they step on the dogmas of every believer, they will be rejected— but for no better reason than their failure to agree with current beliefs.

Moreover, they explain a considerable amount of data which is scientifically accepted but not scientifically understood. The important ideas are all provable, and will lead, someday, to the empirical acceptance of my version of what others call the human soul. The physics principles, when eventually shown to be true, will validate the concept of a created universe. I’m sorry that you don’t want that to happen, and would prefer to adhere to medieval dogmas devised by guys who thought that the earth was the center of the universe and heavy objects fell faster than light ones.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well I can’t wait to read a book like this and when I mentioned the approach to a world class scientist who is also a very devout Catholic, he showed huge interest and is looking forward to the new idea’s…This will allow for some help with interpretation where necessary. (bro)

Looking for problems as a reason to quickly evaluate something is ridiculous.
With everything noted about the work the exploration definitely creates a good deal of wonder.
Wonder is how we have come to this whole approach to begin with, no doubt about it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A reply seems to be warranted.

I’m looking for answers to fundamental questions such as,

• The origin of the universe.
• Was deliberate, intelligent engineering involved in the creation process?
• If so (my long-standing hypothesis), what are the properties of the creator?
• And of course, what is the purpose of creation?
• What is the mechanism involved in human consciousness?
• If remotely “soul-like,” what might the work and destiny of an individual be?
• How might these be realized in the materially embodied state?
• What is the relationship between the Creator and the properties of the stuff of the universe?
• Is our understanding of physics consistent with our understanding of the creator?
• Can it be made consistent?
• If so, what laws of physics are we leaving undiscovered that define the relationship between spirit and physical form?

In my search I use every possible method. I’ve stated my limitations and credentials. I know some science but am not a scientist. Physics is my favorite. My career was mostly in the support of astronomy and other scientific disciplines, from which I learned. I read a variety of scientific material from disciplines outside physics, and have experimented effectively in applied psychology and touch healing.

The techniques I use to deal with ideas are a combination of classical physics, speculation, and some logic to connect the science with the speculations. I am careful about using real laws of physics (such as conservation of energy) and am not afraid to generalize them into areas where no scientist would dare tread— such as the application of a physical (or logical) principle to understanding the nature of God.

Unscientific? Probably— but hardly less so than extrapolating velocity measurements into Big Bang theory, or believing that life self-assembled from dirt.

Essentially, the work I do is called metaphysics, but the approach I take to it is more physics-dependent than the usual. Accusing me of trespassing in the subject is like blaming a farmer for walking in the same field where he’s trying to grow crops.

The OP’s real complaint, I guess, is that he dislikes my results. To retaliate, he attacks my methods. Kind of sneaky, but what else is an intellectual dogmatist to do?

My conclusions trespass freely upon a number of disciplines and belief systems. They affect fundamental dogmas of physics as well as those of all religions. If proven even remotely true,they will change the paradigms of psychology, neuroscience, biology, education, social sciences, and politics. With luck they will forever discredit atheism as a viable belief system, and relegate the philosophers who have promoted it to their deserved status as dreadfully ignorant nitwits incapable of honest critical thinking.

No where in any science book or essay I’ve read, or course I’ve taken, did I see a No Trespassing sign.

I am certain that my conclusions are founded on legitimate, conservative physics principles, and connected with honest logic. I am equally certain that because they step on the dogmas of every believer, they will be rejected— but for no better reason than their failure to agree with current beliefs.

Moreover, they explain a considerable amount of data which is scientifically accepted but not scientifically understood. The important ideas are all provable, and will lead, someday, to the empirical acceptance of my version of what others call the human soul. The physics principles, when eventually shown to be true, will validate the concept of a created universe.

I appreciate what you are trying to do with your project , and i respect you in that sense. I do not criticizes your ideas because i want to destroy your handwork. I don’t want to stop it from happening. But all that hard-work won’t help much if you don’t do it right. It might convince people who don’t really understand the principles driving science as a discipline, but it will never gain the ascent of anyone who understands the epistemological context in which science operates.

You are better off presenting your work as a philosophical challenge to various intellectual paradigms or dogmas as you put. It will gain far more respect if presented in that sense, as opposed to something which is supported by mainstream science.

When your book is out, send me a copy, and i will do a critical review here on catholic answers, so that we can debate the arguments in your book. You never know, i might actually agree with at least some of your arguments.

I’m sorry that you don’t want that to happen, and would prefer to adhere to medieval dogmas devised by guys who thought that the earth was the center of the universe and heavy objects fell faster than light ones.

And i suppose you think that science is merely a modern construct that popped out of nothing with out any help from medieval thinkers? Give me a break greylorn. Not only do i understand that there is a fundamental difference between speculative physics and metaphysics, i am also of the understanding as such that i do not accept Aristotle’s “physics”, while happily accepting metaphysics as a rational discipline. So you can put that in a pipe and smoke it.

 

[abucs]

Wouldn’t the study of quantum physics be the elephant in the room which suggests that the physical world is not a first order of reality but a second order?

If this is correct then in practice we would be barred from proving (in a physical sense) many of the good questions that Greylorn has raise?

Doesn’t the quantum concepts of complimentarity, randomness (relative to us), non locality and the observer affect help to tell us that a veil exists between the first and second orders of reality?

Especially, doesn’t the ‘observer affect’ help us make a reasonable conclusion that the first order of reality that creates our second order of reality (the physical world) has a component of intelligence and consciousness to it.

So through physics, as i see it, the furthest we can reach (our base of physics) is a point which strongly suggests consciousness is present giving rise to scientific law which matter/energy (second order substances) obey.

I can’t see that scientifically we can get much further than that, but of course we should keep trying.

by the way MOM, love your “personal revolution” comment tag.

Mind if i use it?

---

My belief in God is quite literally a revolt, a personal and moral revolution against any ideology hopeless enough to assert that the objective meaning of my existence amounts to nothing more than a secretion of chemicals.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

by the way MOM, love your “personal revolution” comment tag.

Mind if i use it?

---

My belief in God is quite literally a revolt, a personal and moral revolution against any ideology hopeless enough to assert that the objective meaning of my existence amounts to nothing more than a secretion of chemicals.

Thats fine; sure you can use it. If you like it, and it means something to you, then why not.

 

[greylorn]

I appreciate what you are trying to do with your project , and i respect you in that sense. I do not criticizes your ideas because i want to destroy your handwork. I don’t want to stop it from happening. But all that hard-work won’t help much if you don’t do it right. It might convince people who don’t really understand the principles driving science as a discipline, but it will never gain the ascent of anyone who understands the epistemological context in which science operates.

You are better off presenting your work as a philosophical challenge to various intellectual paradigms or dogmas as you put. It will gain far more respect if presented in that sense, as opposed to something which is supported by mainstream science.

When your book is out, send me a copy, and i will do a critical review here on catholic answers, so that we can debate the arguments in your book. You never know, i might actually agree with at least some of your arguments.

Your thoughts about “doing it right” are, seems to me, well intentioned. But, having read neither my book nor website, and not more than a few percent of my CAF posts, you are a weak authority as to how I’m “doing it.” Nevermind that. I appreciate your concern about doing it right.

The publication date of the book will be within a few ticks of the 50th anniversary of the conception of the ideas which led to it. Most of the readers who I hope will read it were not alive 50 years ago. Since initial idea-inception, I’ve tried many forms of presentation, including five worthless manuscripts and one published novel. None of them really worked, and I do not expect this one to fare better. The novel sold several million copies and is still being read; I shall be surprised if the coming book sells more than several thousand copies. Most people are too thoroughly programmed to understand much of it.

I do not know if anyone has ever attempted to write a book which is certain to offend everyone, atheistic scientists and religionists alike, while trying to interest them in an alternative perspective. I would only wish such a project upon someone I deeply hate. It is more troublesome than designing a dress that looks good on all women.

I am using the last of my personal resources to put the book into print because I cannot find a publisher. Free copies paid for entirely from my own pocket will be going out to those who have assisted my editing process, some from CAF. I’m pricing the book at rock bottom, less than the cost of a restaurant bottle of Zinfandel. You can read the book and change your entire life, or get mildly soused for an hour, at the same price. Seems fair to me. I know the choice that most will make.

Perhaps if you cannot afford the book, someone else will make it a subject of CAF consternation.

And i suppose you think that science is merely a modern construct that popped out of nothing with out any help from medieval thinkers? Give me a break greylorn. Not only do i understand that there is a fundamental difference between speculative physics and metaphysics, i am also of the understanding as such that i do not accept Aristotle’s “physics”, while happily accepting metaphysics as a rational discipline. So you can put that in a pipe and smoke it.

Don’t be silly. Science had its roots in medieval thinkers, but not from thinkers who, in medieval times, simply believed the customary philosophical/religious drool of the day. Lots of the people who post on CAF mistake their linguistic rearrangements of medieval beliefs for actual “thought,” I often find them worthy of a wake-up call, which they often mistake as a personal affront.

I’ve no idea what you personally happen to understand or believe, and since were not plowing the same field, its none of my business. But what you bring up, I might comment upon. Given my limited understanding of your real understanding, my interpretations of your statements could be just as terrible as your of mine. So long as neither of us is looking to offend the other, we’ll deal with it, perhaps someday over a long beer.

Metaphysics is entirely dependent upon physics. The glut of “metaphysical” books lurking on the shelves of libraries and mystical bookstores were pretty much written by nitwits who would not know what F = ma means and think that Newton is a kind of fig. And that explains why they are worthless, and why metaphysics is, IMO, the worst-studied subject ever engaged by mankind.

I would need a pipe to even tolerate another metaphysics book, they are so bad. But I gave up smoking and dumb metaphysics decades ago.

How can a study named “after-physics,” which should properly have been named antephysics, be competently engaged by fools who know nothing of physics? Better that it be engaged by someone like me who knows just enough physics to be dangerous, not enough to be getting paid by the physics establishment.

 

[tonyrey]

How can a study named “after-physics,” which should properly have been named antephysics, be competently engaged by fools who know nothing of physics?

Physics is based on metaphysical principles such as the intelligibility of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

How can a study named “after-physics,” which should properly have been named antephysics, be competently engaged by fools who know nothing of physics?

In Christ and Science (p. 23), Stanley Jaki gives four reasons for modern science’s unique birth in Christian Western Europe:

1. 
   *]“Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a **nature with autonomous laws *without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms."
   ]"The Christian idea of creation made still another crucially important contribution to the future of science. It consisted in putting all material beings on the same level *as being mere creatures. Unlike in the pagan Greek cosmos, there could be no divine bodies in the Christian cosmos. All bodies, heavenly and terrestrial, were now on the same footing, on the same level. this made it eventually possible to assume that the motion of the moon and the fall of a body on earth could be governed by the same law of gravitation. The assumption would have been a sacrilege in the eyes of anyone in the Greek pantheistic tradition, or in any similar tradition in any of the ancient cultures."
   ]"Finally, man figured in the Christian dogma of creation as a being specially created in the image of God. This image consisted both in man’s rationality as somehow sharing in God’s own rationality and in man’s condition as an ethical being with eternal responsibility for his actions. Man’s reflection on his own rationality had therefore to give him confidence that his created mind could fathom the rationality **of the created realm.”
   *]“At the same time, the very createdness could caution man to guard against the ever-present temptation to dictate to nature what it ought to be. The eventual rise of the experimental method owes much to that Christian matrix.”
   
   columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

 

[Sair]

scientific principles and statements operate within a limited context which has nothing to do with having knowledge of all possible things, but rather, having knowledge of physical properties (spatial, measurable finite dimensions, and time). This means that the truth of these statements are only considered truth relative to those objects which fall under the complete definition of physical. Physical properties have to fulfill all of the physical definitions in-order to be considered physical, and anything that lay outside that definition is not necessarily subject to the limitations which dominate physical properties.

I realise I’m coming late to the party, MoM, but I’ve lately been thinking a bit about this notion of a distinction between physical and nonphysical reality, so I wanted to raise a couple of things that may or may not have been considered before.

Firstly, how does one draw a distinction, except in pure imagination, between physical and nonphysical things that actually exist? How would one even determine the existence of any nonphysical entity?

The latter, particularly, since it would appear that you are bound here by your given definition of physical things - that which can be accounted for spatially, dimensionally and temporally. What other limits do we have by which we might know an entity to be a real entity?

Some might say that human thought and speculation and imagination and so forth are nonphysical because they have not such limits; yet the same people acknowledge that it is impossible for one person to know the content of another’s mind - it would therefore seem that a mind, as an entity, is spatially and temporally limited, unable to travel from one location to another except through explicitly physical means - speech, for example, or writing.

It’s one thing to consider having knowledge of all things, but quite another to consider that all things *of which it is possible for us to have knowledge *are of one kind.

 

[Sair]

“The Christian idea of creation made still another crucially important contribution to the future of science. It consisted in putting all material beings on the same level as being mere creatures.”

Unfortunately, when it comes to modern science, it failed to consider humans in the same category…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Metaphysics is entirely dependent upon physics.

You claim that you are challenging dogma, but your thoughts about method, in so far as epistemology is concerned, are merely regurgitations of the same old tired dogmatic “scientism” that empowers atheist propaganda. Perhaps you know some math and theory, but your refusal to express scientific concepts within their proper context is proof that you know very little about the scientific method as a mode of investigation.

As for your website, why don’t you give me a link?