Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Charlemagne_II]

Tony

**Charlie, Einstein could see beyond the trees but not beyond the wood! **

It was a sign of wisdom in him that he saw the lack of his own wisdom when he backed the building of nuclear weapons.

That is to say, he was a better physicist than a philosopher.

 

[inocente]

**It seems to be your impression that a man must always be a wise man or always lack wisdom.

It isn’t that simplistic. Plato and Aristotle erred from time to time. That does not mean they were not capable of great wisdom.

Your either/or strategy in real life just doesn’t work. **
It’s your opinion that some of Einstein’s opinions were foolish, and it’s your opinion that some of Einstein’s opinions were wise, and it’s your opinion that some of his opinions were so-so.

It’s your opinion that Gorgias isn’t modern enough, but you never gave your opinion when I pointed out that Plato lived in the same century.

And after asking for more modern philosophers who espouse solipsism, you also somehow forgot to give your opinion when I gave Descartes, Berkley, and Wittgenstein.

So you’re the one with the either/or opinions, you’re picking the philosophers you like, it’s a matter of either/or taste, just as with bow ties, boy bands and strawberry ice cream.

Whereas in science there are no authorities who decide what is a good or bad idea, the only authority (in Feynman’s words) is “if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong!”. That’s why science works and philosophy is just a matter of taste.

 

[WmJackP]

Some people think spiritual reality doesn’t exist because it cannot be detected with a scientific instrument!

That’s not quite accurate. More accurately stated is that some people think that scientific reality cannot be proven. Whether it exists is an unknowable.

Why such folks fail to believe that there is a “spiritual” reality (at least in the sense that you intend the phrase) is for the same reason that they do not believe in alien adductions— namely, that to be believed, a proposition must conform to certain criteria in order to be worthy of belief. Hence, while it is certainly possible that alien adductions occur, until there is evidence which conforms to honest observation, logical consistency and verifiable
phenomena, the proposition is not one which can be rationally entertained as true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s not quite accurate. More accurately stated is that some people think that scientific reality cannot be proven. Whether it exists is an unknowable.

Why such folks fail to believe that there is a “spiritual” reality (at least in the sense that you intend the phrase) is for the same reason that they do not believe in alien adductions— namely, that to be believed, a proposition must conform to certain criteria in order to be worthy of belief. Hence, while it is certainly possible that alien adductions occur, until there is evidence which conforms to honest observation, logical consistency and verifiable
phenomena, the proposition is not one which can be rationally entertained as true.

This seems to be a rather deliberate attempt to present the “worst case” in terms of belief in a “spiritual” reality. A more apt comparison would be, not to alien adductions [sic] since that would entail an additional belief about the nature of aliens, i.e., that aliens are necessarily the kinds of things that would abduct humans.

More apt would be a comparison between those who believe that the existence of a spiritual reality is possible to those who believe that the existence of aliens is also a possibility. The evidence definitely does not preclude the possibility that aliens could exist. We do not have any reason for thinking they don’t.

In fact, a belief in “spiritual” reality is positively supported by the fact that the evidential field for gleaning “truth” about reality runs into clear limitations with the boundaries of space-time and cosmic origins. The universe clearly does not explain itself nor the origin of the laws by which it is organized, which means physical reality certainly need not be the only reality. We have a very good reason, contrary to your intimation, that a “spiritual” reality does, indeed, exist.

 

[WmJackP]

The evidence definitely does not preclude the possibility that aliens could exist. We do not have any reason for thinking they don’t.

First of all, I am not altogether certain to what points you find erroneous in my logic. It simply is not clear to me. However, I will hope that it is not personal with you (as that would be regrettable because it will impair any discussion we might otherwise enjoy).

Nonetheless, the one highlighted statement above is one I can respond to. I would hope that you will agree with me that we can only rationally subscribe to beliefs about things not because we have no reason to think otherwise; but, only when we have reason to think the proposition is so. The principle is commonly thought of as the “burden of proof”. For example, if you expect me to believe that the planet Neptune is inhabited, then you must demonstrate a rational basis to support the proposition. Until that is shown, one is simply not behaving rationally if he goes about town proselytizing on the subject of Neptune’s inhabitants.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s not quite accurate. More accurately stated is that some people think that scientific reality cannot be proven. Whether it exists is an unknowable.

Why such folks fail to believe that there is a “spiritual” reality (at least in the sense that you intend the phrase) is for the same reason that they do not believe in alien adductions— namely, that to be believed, a proposition must conform to certain criteria in order to be worthy of belief. Hence, while it is certainly possible that alien abductions occur, until there is evidence which conforms to honest observation, logical consistency and verifiable phenomena, the proposition is not one which can be rationally entertained as true.

To affirm dogmatically that alien abductions never occur because it also implies supporting evidence. In such cases it is more reasonable to suspend judgment.

Belief in “scientific reality” amounts to an act of faith because it is based on inference from our perceptions. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness.

To put matter before mind is to put the cart before the horse. Mindless objects - like the tissue inside the skull - are unaware of anything, least of all themselves.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony

**Charlie, Einstein could see beyond the trees but not beyond the wood! **

It was a sign of wisdom in him that he saw the lack of his own wisdom when he backed the building of nuclear weapons.

That is to say, he was a better physicist than a philosopher.

Didn’t he eventually regret it?

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s not forget that science at least is based objective evidence, which is not the case for religion it seems.

All objective evidence is based on subjective activity. Science presupposes the reality of reason.

 

[WmJackP]

To affirm dogmatically that alien abductions never occur because it also implies supporting evidence. In such cases it is more reasonable to suspend judgment.

I agree that the statement " alien adductions do not occur" cannot be made “with certainty”. But that is not the claim I make. I simply do not subscribe to beliefs without a rational basis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tony

**Didn’t he eventually regret it? **

Yes, according to his own words.

“Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Whereas in science there are no authorities who decide what is a good or bad idea, the only authority (in Feynman’s words) is “if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong!”. That’s why science works and philosophy is just a matter of taste. **

That’s true only for a relativist. If you are a relativist, you are philosophizing!

 

[Peter_Plato]

First of all, I am not altogether certain to what points you find erroneous in my logic. It simply is not clear to me. However, I will hope that it is not personal with you (as that would be regrettable because it will impair any discussion we might otherwise enjoy).

Nothing personal is intended.

Nonetheless, the one highlighted statement above is one I can respond to. I would hope that you will agree with me that we can only rationally subscribe to beliefs about things not because we have no reason to think otherwise; but, only when we have reason to think the proposition is so. The principle is commonly thought of as the “burden of proof”. For example, if you expect me to believe that the planet Neptune is inhabited, then you must demonstrate a rational basis to support the proposition. Until that is shown, one is simply not behaving rationally if he goes about town proselytizing on the subject of Neptune’s inhabitants.

Once a claim is “localized” as in “inhabitants of Neptune,” you are quite correct that it is subject to a burden of proof because the parameters have been defined in a way that the claim is susceptible to evidential “proof,” just as alien abductions provide a “localized” set of parameters that are subject to the same burden.

However, the claim that aliens exist is not that kind of local claim. In a sense, the parameters are “wide open” and probability, given the number of planets, the size of the universe, etc., make it a plausible claim that is difficult to provide specific counter evidence. We must rely on plausibility, possibility or such like until the claim can be localized and evidence provided.

A claim that God exists is more like an “open” claim that aliens exist, than a “localized” one that aliens exist on Neptune. It isn’t subject to a burden of proof because the parameters have not been sufficiently “localized” to allow evidence to be entertained.

Now a specific claim, like Jesus rose from the dead in Jerusalem IS a localized claim that IS subject to a burden of proof and evidence can be entertained and debated.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that the statement " alien adductions do not occur" cannot be made “with certainty”. But that is not the claim I make. I simply do not subscribe to beliefs without a rational basis.

Which of your beliefs have a rational basis and how do you decide whether they are rational?

I know these are tough questions but we all need to answer them if we are justified in claiming to be rational - at least some of the time!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack

I simply do not subscribe to beliefs without a rational basis.

What is a rational basis? Whatever you say it is? That is, could you not believe in God unless he appeared to you in person? Would that be a rational basis? Or would you simply deduce that you were hallucinating?

You see the point? Your lack of belief is in your desire not to believe. Will trumps intellect. There is no amount of rationality that will bring you to God. You have to willfully open your heart to God in order to know Him. And that takes an enormous gulp of humility.

 

[WmJackP]

Which of your beliefs have a rational basis and how do you decide whether they are rational?

You pose a fair question and deserving of a straight answer. First, the belief must be founded upon consistency in logic, honest observation and the explanation parsimonious in scope. I would say those are my criteria.

How about you?

 

[WmJackP]

I disagree. Application of the “the burden of proof doctrine” does not depend upon an analysis of whether the claim is localized or more generic in scope. It depends upon whether–in questions of doubt–there is evidence to support the proposition or not.

For example if I make the claim that in the community where Peter Plato resides there is a man named Charlie—very probably there is because I am speaking to Plato now and I know that we are speaking on an American based site. I know that Charlie is a common American name. The other circumstances that I know are consistent with a high probability that in any American community there’s got to be almost for sure a "Charlie—however, I don’t know for a fact that there is a Charlie. It is possible, for example, that you live on a remote island with your dog named Bowser. So, if I were in a court room I would have to prove (ie meet the burden of proof) that a Charlie lived in your community. That would require me to authenticate the location of Plato’s community, produce a current phone book and demonstrate a person named Charlie in it (or produce some other accepted mode of proof).

So while there is a very high likelihood of life somewhere in this vast cosmos (it is quite a big place) still the burden of proof is exists and is a requirement for “knowing” a fact as true or not. In any other case, we are only guessing based on probabilities. Certainly the probability of life in the cosmos is great—maybe greater even than the proposition that in Plato’s neck of the wood’s there is a Charlie.

If the likelihood is extremely high—such as is so for the proposition that in the city of Minneapolis there is a feline named Misty. When the likelihood is so great, one can easily be predisposed to believe the proposition and accept much less in terms of quantum of proof. Nonetheless, the fact of a Misty cat in Minneapolis still must be established if it is to be said to have been “proven”.

Conversely, there are propositions that are so inconsistent with logic, experience and probability that the quantum of proof must be extremely high to merit belief. The moon is made of green cheese, for example. The proposition is so contrary to experience that one could easily find himself discounting sworn testimony of astronauts who walked on the surface of the moon. There are too many competing other explanations–like the astronauts are simply deluded, or being deceitful or confused. The fact-finder would be entirely justified in disregarding all but the most rigorous and strict forms of proof, requiring explanations as to how cheese could form under such conditions and then expecting the proofs to rule out all competing explanations before accepting the proposition as worthy of belief. Extraordinary claims, after all, require extraordinary proof, as carl Sagen frequently said.

 

[WmJackP]

Jack

I simply do not subscribe to beliefs without a rational basis.

What is a rational basis? Whatever you say it is? That is, could you not believe in God unless he appeared to you in person? Would that be a rational basis? Or would you simply deduce that you were hallucinating?

You see the point? Your lack of belief is in your desire not to believe. Will trumps intellect. There is no amount of rationality that will bring you to God. You have to willfully open your heart to God in order to know Him. And that takes an enormous gulp of humility.

No, that is not what I say. What is rational and what supports valid beliefs is most certainly not whim or caprice. Rational belief is based on criteria. It is the same criteria that you use in your most important business affairs–consistency of logic, parsimony and honest observation. Why do you believe the earth is round? Why do you not belief in the power of Zeus? Both of these propositions when matched up with these criteria make one worthy of belief and the other not.

See my point?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Conversely, there are propositions that are so inconsistent with logic, experience and probability that the quantum of proof must be extremely high to merit belief. The moon is made of green cheese, for example. The proposition is so contrary to experience that one could easily find himself discounting sworn testimony of astronauts who walked on the surface of the moon. There are too many competing other explanations–like the astronauts are simply deluded, or being deceitful or confused. The fact-finder would be entirely justified in disregarding all but the most rigorous and strict forms of proof, requiring explanations as to how cheese could form under such conditions and then expecting the proofs to rule out all competing explanations before accepting the proposition as worthy of belief. Extraordinary claims, after all, require extraordinary proof, as carl Sagen frequently said.

That the universe (space-time, energy, matter, laws of physics) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago is an extraordinary fact (or nearly so.) A distinct cosmic origin means there is a distinct limit to what extraordinary physical evidence can support. Extraordinary physical proof cannot exist prior to the extraordinary physical origin of the universe, so the question to be asked is what would be the nature of the extraordinary evidence (lacking the possibility of physical evidence) that would sufficiently explain this extraordinary event?

I noticed you didn’t honour my initial post on this question with a reply.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack

Why do you believe the earth is round? Why do you not belief in the power of Zeus?

I believe the earth is round because I have seen its roundness in photos from space.

I do not believe in Zeus because even the Greeks no longer believe in Zeus.

I believe in God without requiring that He show himself to me as the round earth shows itself to me.

Doesn’t that make sense to you? That God would not be visible as the earth is?

That my God is more believable is sustained by the fact that even the Greeks think he is a whole lot more believable than Zeus.

 

[tonyrey]

Which of your beliefs have a rational basis and how do you decide whether they are rational?

I agree with you but I don’t restrict observation to external objects because I regard the mind as far more significant than matter.

I also believe the most parsimonious explanation of reality is one Supreme Being.