What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[ChainBreaker]

Oh, it could be repeated every other week, to make it observable and testable. Easy as a breeze.

From a scientific perspective, all it would be evidence of is that physical events have been rearranged. The further extrapolation that they have been rearranged by something intelligent is to go beyond what we can know with the scientific method alone.

You doing exactly the same thing you were denying was possible. You are using another mode of knowing.

You don’t seem to really understand how the scientific method works epistemologically speaking.

 

[MPat]

You are always welcome to call me a liar or a misguided idiot.

I didn’t say that. Please, do not look for insults where they do not exist.

Many zeros after the decimal point and then a one.

Certainly not two?

Anyway, “many” is not even an approximate estimate. I guess we can simply say it is equal to zero.

I did present one, in this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12605508&postcount=601

That is a method by which God could demonstrate His existence, not method, by which a human could demonstrate His existence.

I happen to be a math professor, who lectured probability theory and mathematical statistics for several decades. So, I would venture to say that I have more than a cursory knowledge about the subject.

An appeal to authority? Sorry, but I’m not impressed. This is not the personnel department and I am not interested in your CV.

Please present proper arguments that show that your claims about statistical hypothesis are not completely wrong. Present better sources than mine, if you can find some. If your claims are correct, that shouldn’t be hard, as I just used some of the first URLs that I found.

It was followed by a detailed explanation.

Yes. A detailed explanation of something I didn’t ask about.

The plethora of supplicative prayers clearly shows that those Catholics believe that God IS a vending machine.

And if students ask the professor for a better grade, they think that professor is a vending machine?

“God is not a vending machine.” means that granting of prayers is not automatic.

But be as it may, even if the subject knows about being tested, there are ways and means of countering that knowledge. And if the subject is smart enough to circumvent the procedure, he is STILL a cheater if he does.

Can you support this claim with some argument? Let’s not forget that “the subject” hasn’t agreed to participate in the experiment. Given that, I’d say there is nothing wrong with him sabotaging the experiment.

 

[MPat]

I never claimed that its is the ONLY one. I ASKED for alternative ones, and there is STILL no reply.

Well, I did give you an answer:

So, how have you scientifically verified the claim that scientific method is the only good one…?

If you have, I would like to see the paper.

If you have not, I guess that we have found another source of knowledge. I hope that would be Philosophy, since the alternative is “making things up when that is convenient”…

So, one of them would be “Philosophy”.

If you think this answer is not good, please, try to present a non-philosophical (preferably, scientific) proof that to that effect. I don’t think that is possible.

I am getting somewhat desperate. You guys (and maybe gals) keep putting words into my mouth, which I never uttered. That is most unfortunate, because it is serious impediment on getting somewhere.

Well, as discussed in another thread, if the receivers do not understand the messages that the sender sends, whose fault it is…?

Anyway, what you wrote is this:

What other modes of “knowledge”? What kind of epistemology can you offer which can be used to separate the **true claims **from the false ones? Because that is the crux of the problem. Regardless of the specifics, the scientific method has one underpinning: “verification” and/or “falsification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

I read those questions as rhetorical. You say they were not?

 

[MPat]

By the way I am still waiting to be enlightened about the ways and means to prove a “negative”. Please don’t treat me like a mushroom! I want to know.

Sure.

departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

Or you can take, let’s say, proof of Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

I’m afraid “It is impossible to prove a negative.” is just a “cop-out”…

 

[Bradski]

From a scientific perspective, all it would be evidence of is that physical events have been rearranged. The further extrapolation that they have been rearranged by something intelligent is to go beyond what we can know with the scientific method alone.

So if a cancer disappears, all we can tell is that ‘physical events have been rearranged’. We can’t tell if it was done by something intelligent.

Here’s a simple question: Is it that all spontaneous remissions (that is, a remission for which there is no medical explanation) of any illness you’d care to think about can be classed as a miracle?

“Spontaneous regression is a well-authenticated and natural phenomenon. Its study may lead us to a better understanding of the natural history of neoplastic disease which so commonly progresses but rarely regresses. The comparative rarity of spontaneous regressions today may result from the immunosuppressive nature of conventional cancer therapies.The spontaneous healing of cancer, after having been the subject of many controversies, is now accepted as an indisputable fact. The percentage of spontaneous regression as quoted by Boyers is 1 in 80,000 and 1 in 100,00 by Bashford”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

Surely, if they were all studied by anyone competent appointed by the Vatican, the very definition of the cure, that it was spontaneous (the definition from the same link being: “the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor in the absence of treatment or in the presence of therapy considered inadequate to exert a significant influence on the disease”) would invariably result in the conclusion that it must have been a miracle.

On what basis is spontaneous remission NOT classed as a miracle? Is it simply that the example has not been investigated. Are all such cases ‘miracles in waiting’?

If there is no basis for not classing it as such, then in every case where we have someone saying - I have no explanation, we’d have the nearest available Christian shouting: ‘It’s a miracle!’

Or is that too much of a caricature?

 

[Al_Moritz]

“Spontaneous regression is a well-authenticated and natural phenomenon. Its study may lead us to a better understanding of the natural history of neoplastic disease which so commonly progresses but rarely regresses. The comparative rarity of spontaneous regressions today may result from the immunosuppressive nature of conventional cancer therapies.The spontaneous healing of cancer, after having been the subject of many controversies, is now accepted as an indisputable fact. The percentage of spontaneous regression as quoted by Boyers is 1 in 80,000 and 1 in 100,00 by Bashford”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

Very interesting link, thanks!

Cancer immunotherapy has recently become a hot topic again.

 

[ChainBreaker]

So if a cancer disappears, all we can tell is that ‘physical events have been rearranged’. We can’t tell if it was done by something intelligent.

Here’s a simple question: Is it that all spontaneous remissions (that is, a remission for which there is no medical explanation) of any illness you’d care to think about can be classed as a miracle?

“Spontaneous regression is a well-authenticated and natural phenomenon. Its study may lead us to a better understanding of the natural history of neoplastic disease which so commonly progresses but rarely regresses. The comparative rarity of spontaneous regressions today may result from the immunosuppressive nature of conventional cancer therapies.The spontaneous healing of cancer, after having been the subject of many controversies, is now accepted as an indisputable fact. The percentage of spontaneous regression as quoted by Boyers is 1 in 80,000 and 1 in 100,00 by Bashford”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

Surely, if they were all studied by anyone competent appointed by the Vatican, the very definition of the cure, that it was spontaneous (the definition from the same link being: “the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor in the absence of treatment or in the presence of therapy considered inadequate to exert a significant influence on the disease”) would invariably result in the conclusion that it must have been a miracle.

On what basis is spontaneous remission NOT classed as a miracle? Is it simply that the example has not been investigated. Are all such cases ‘miracles in waiting’?

If there is no basis for not classing it as such, then in every case where we have someone saying - I have no explanation, we’d have the nearest available Christian shouting: ‘It’s a miracle!’

Or is that too much of a caricature?

Well being a theist myself I don’t see a distinction between natural phenomena and a miracle. A natural event is simply events that are occurring according to the nature of the objects involved rather than being directly moved into place by an intellect. But it is God who creates the laws and gives these objects their natures and powers to begin with. Thus in my mind all physical effects or powers are a creation of God despite not be directly manipulated by God.

Most Christians would argue that a miracle of God is when God manipulates physical events to obtain a specific outcome. Has this ever happened? I don’t know. One merely has to decide whether it is a coincidence that some remission occurs in relation to somebodies illness or not. And what is an illness without looking at it in teleological fashion? A remission presupposes that something was “fixed”, but what meaning does that have in a reality with no objective purpose meaning or value. Thus while it might not be evidence of a miracle, it does seem to imply that the body in general functions according to teleological end and so has a true objective purpose that was being impeded by cancer.

If you are asking what should be classed as a miracle and what shouldn’t be, then I can only say that the scientific method itself cannot detect the difference for the simple fact that miracles involve natural processes that are aimed at a specific end and the scientific method can only measure the process, not the purpose.

 

[Bradski]

Thus while it might not be evidence of a miracle, it does seem to imply that the body in general functions according to teleological end

If you are asking what should be classed as a miracle and what shouldn’t be, then I can only say that the scientific method itself cannot detect the difference for the simple fact that miracles involve natural processes that are aimed at a specific end and the scientific method can only measure the process, not the purpose.

I guess you could say that the teleogical end of the human body is to stay alive.

And in regard to the process versus the end result, that paper to which I linked explains quite well that the body’s natural immune system when kicked into overdrive has a purpose. To remove that which is trying to kill the body.

If a cancer disappears without external treatment, then the body itself must be involved in the process whether that fact can be determined or not. But spontaneous remission specifically excludes the effects of the body’s own immune system. Does a miracle allow for that? If so, anyone who recovers from the flu or has a cut heal up should be thanking God for the miracle.

 

[Hee_Zen]

So, one of them would be “Philosophy”.

If you think this answer is not good, please, try to present a non-philosophical (preferably, scientific) proof that to that effect. I don’t think that is possible.

Since you did not present any method of “philosophy” which would separate true and false claims your answer is insufficient. As I said, epistemology is the key.

Well, as discussed in another thread, if the receivers do not understand the messages that the sender sends, whose fault it is…?

Let’s not mix up the threads. I already answered it there.

I read those questions as rhetorical. You say they were not?

Nope, they are dead serious.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Sure.

departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

Or you can take, let’s say, proof of Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

I’m afraid “It is impossible to prove a negative.” is just a “cop-out”…

A nice play on words, without a substance.

 

[Hee_Zen]

That is a method by which God could demonstrate His existence, not method, by which a human could demonstrate His existence.

I merely said that there are many possible scenarios by which God’s existence could be demonstrated. And that example was one of them. Obviously God must participate, because without it, all you can do is repeat the nonsense philosophical “proofs”, which cannot convince anyone.

Anyhow, here is another possible demonstration. All of you believers in ANY kind of a deity go hop in your car, wear a blindfold and put the pedal to the metal (not the break or the clutch, the gas!!!) for a limited time, say half an hour. Whichever deity is the “true” one will preserve its followers, while the rest will die. The survivors can claim the “real god”. If the “real” deity does not save its followers, then… tough luck.

 

[MPat]

Since you did not present any method of “philosophy” which would separate true and false claims your answer is insufficient. As I said, epistemology is the key.

For example, “Get to the logical contradiction and you will know that some assumption has been false.”. It will be hard to dismiss that method, as that would also dismiss Mathematics.

Let’s not mix up the threads. I already answered it there.

And why shouldn’t we “mix up the threads”? Truth is consistent, if you have claimed something is true there, you have to accept the consequences elsewhere.

And yes, you did give an answer there, saying that it is always the sender’s fault. Now you’re the sender. You can either revise your previous answer, or try to communicate in the way that is impossible to misunderstand. I would say that first solution would be easier…

MPat;12606043:

Sure.

departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

Or you can take, let’s say, proof of Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

I’m afraid “It is impossible to prove a negative.” is just a “cop-out”…

A nice play on words, without a substance.

I will note that you have not actually given any arguments here, nor did you explain where that “play on words” is. So, do you claim that Arrow’s impossibility theorem not a “negative”…? Do you have answers to the arguments given in the paper I have linked to…? Sorry, but otherwise you do create impression that you just do not want to admit you are wrong… Or are you going to show some provocation somewhere, that justifies all that…?

 

[Hee_Zen]

For example, “Get to the logical contradiction and you will know that some assumption has been false.”. It will be hard to dismiss that method, as that would also dismiss Mathematics.

Logical contradictions belong to axiomatically defined systems, LIKE mathematics. But if you insist, please “prove” to me that there is no fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragon in my basement. But before you attempt, I will remind you that “proof” is a reserved word for axiomatic systems. In inductive systems you use the word of “substantiate” to indicate that there is no Cartesian certainty involved.

I will note that you have not actually given any arguments here, nor did you explain where that “play on words” is.

Nope, I am not interested in writing an essay.

So, do you claim that Arrow’s impossibility theorem not a “negative”…?

Arrow himself states that he uses an axiomatic approach. Of course one can prove a negative in an axiomatic system - but only in an axiomatic system. As for the “word play” exhibited in the quoted article, namely that every positive can be expressed as a double negative - I recall an old joke.

The teacher tells in class that one can use double negative to express a positive statement, but one cannot use two positives and reach a negative. Whereupon one of the students proclaims: “Yeah, right!”.

 

[MPat]

Logical contradictions belong to axiomatically defined systems, LIKE mathematics. But if you insist, please “prove” to me that there is no fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragon in my basement.

Who of us said that truth any kind of claim can be judged by any method? Some claims can be judged by double blind experiments, some - by looking for logical contradiction, some - by forensic examination, some - by direct observation…

Anyway, you asked for an alternative - you got it. You didn’t say what kind of alternative you wanted.

But before you attempt, I will remind you that “proof” is a reserved word for axiomatic systems. In inductive systems you use the word of “substantiate” to indicate that there is no Cartesian certainty involved.

I’m pretty sure that no one would have objected if you tried to “substantiate a negative”.

Nope, I am not interested in writing an essay.

And that “essay” would have been as long as this?

Arrow himself states that he uses an axiomatic approach. Of course one can prove a negative in an axiomatic system - but only in an axiomatic system. As for the “word play” exhibited in the quoted article, namely that every positive can be expressed as a double negative - I recall an old joke.

The teacher tells in class that one can use double negative to express a positive statement, but one cannot use two positives and reach a negative. Whereupon one of the students proclaims: “Yeah, right!”.

I’d say that’s a rather short “essay”…

But let’s look at it.

Arrow himself states that he uses an axiomatic approach. Of course one can prove a negative in an axiomatic system - but only in an axiomatic system.

Obviously not, unless you define “axiomatic system” so broadly, that this distinction becomes far less useful to you. For example: “Any bacteria has one cell. Socrates has more than one cell. Therefore, Socrates is not a bacteria.”. “Socrates is not a bacteria.” is a “negative”. You are free to say that statements we get from observations (like “Socrates has more than one cell.”) are also axioms, but then you can no longer dismiss any philosophical argument without engaging it, as in such case they can also work with such “axiomatic system” that corresponds to real life.

As for the “word play” exhibited in the quoted article, namely that every positive can be expressed as a double negative - I recall an old joke.

The teacher tells in class that one can use double negative to express a positive statement, but one cannot use two positives and reach a negative. Whereupon one of the students proclaims: “Yeah, right!”.

Good joke. But that is not a “word play”. That is you making imprecise claims that end up being wrong, unless they are clarified. If you want that “You cannot prove a negative.” to be true, you have to specify, what kind of “negative” you are talking about.

Anyway, at this point I would be more interested in arguments, showing that your explanations about statistical tests are correct…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Logical contradictions belong to axiomatically defined systems, LIKE mathematics. But if you insist, please “prove” to me that there is no fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragon in my basement. But before you attempt, I will remind you that “proof” is a reserved word for axiomatic systems. In inductive systems you use the word of “substantiate” to indicate that there is no Cartesian certainty involved.

We have no reason for thinking a fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragon exists in the basement. It is not required to explain anything, nor do we have any reason even for proposing such a thing in the first place. That is why it never is proposed except by three year olds with vivid imaginations.

The difference is that we have significantly different world views that hang completely upon the answer to whether the ground of existence is intentional, intelligent and personal in some profound and mystical sense or whether the ground of existence is merely material brute fact, a purposeless space-time continuum that just “happened” to spring into existence, magically and inexplicably some 13.7 billion years ago.

The first worldview provides a plausible explanation for the “apparent” meaningfulness of the universe, it’s ordered arrangement, the fact that it can be described in elegant mathematical terms and the fact that it can be apprehended at profoundly deep levels by human intelligence. Not to mention that the resources in the universe fit so well with the basic physiological, psychological and spiritual needs of intelligent human beings.

A dragon in the basement makes absolutely no difference to anyone’s world view - well except the world view of a three year old. The existence of a personal ground of existence who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent makes all the difference in terms of how and why we carry on living as moral agents in the world.

It may be an exceptionally vexing question to answer whether God exists and how we would know that, but so what? It is just as exceptionally vexing a question to answer how we can know anything at all. There can be no denial that his existence matters and matters so much that exceptional evidence must be demanded to dismiss the proposition as untrue, precisely BECAUSE the existence of God is not inconsequential. We don’t know for certain, either way, and the eternal destiny of individual human beings may hang in the balance. Nothing depends upon whether an imagined dragon exists and the question can safely be dismissed as unimportant. Not so with the question of God.

Not in the least because existence, itself, loses embedded purposefulness. Meaningfulness and purpose gets moved from existence itself onto human neurochemistry. Huge implications hang on that.

What we ought to be doing is seriously considering the complete case for God as presented historically, morally, metaphysically and theologically rather than minimizing that case or dismissing it prematurely, as you advocate.

 

[Bradski]

We have no reason for thinking a fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragon exists in the basement. It is not required to explain anything, nor do we have any reason even for proposing such a thing in the first place. That is why it never is proposed except by three year olds with vivid imaginations.

It is, dare I say it, a caricature. It focuses the mind and the argument. If you would prefer, crank the example back to any other current deity of your choice. And disprove any of them.

 

[Bahman]

It is, dare I say it, a caricature. It focuses the mind and the argument. If you would prefer, crank the example back to any other current deity of your choice. And disprove any of them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is, dare I say it, a caricature. It focuses the mind and the argument. If you would prefer, crank the example back to any other current deity of your choice. And disprove any of them.

I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be here. It appears to be a version of the “one god less” caricature of an argument, but your comment isn’t explicit in terms of an actual point.

If I understand the blurry lines of this “caricature” what you are getting at is that fire breathing dragons, like Thor and Zeus are imaginary in the same sense and therefore Thor and Zeus should be dismissed for much the same reason. What you fail to show, however, is that Thor and Zeus are anything like the God of classical theism.

The “one god more” argument is simply a bad argument, in any case. Bad books, that aren’t worth your time to read them, exist, therefore all books are not worth your time to read them.

The concept of the supernatural does not fail, in principle, because imaginary or imagined entities have been conjured up. We know supernatural entities do, in fact, exist; abstract concepts being one such supernatural entity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, okay, fire-breathing, seven-headed magical dragons not ONLY exist in basements as conjured by the vivid imaginations of three year olds, they also exist as the profile pictures of individuals who go by the name of Bahman and propose obtuse arguments about consciousness as uncaused causation.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be here. It appears to be a version of the “one god less” caricature of an argument, but your comment isn’t explicit in terms of an actual point…

The point was how you could prove a negative.

If you think a dragon in the basement isn’t worth the effort, then pick a god from another religion, one that has significant meaning for many people and prove it’s non-existence. You will be as succesful as I would be in attempting to prove the non-existence of the Abrahamic God.

And is there any answer to how we are to differentiate the thousands of spontaneous remissions each year from miracles? Are they all miracles waiting to be declared?