Tangentially, this sort of quote is interesting, as an example of just how much extra narrative gets piled on top of concepts. The common underlying assumption is if one is “spiritual” then one believes in the soul; if one doesn’t believe in the soul, one must be an atheist. Other possibilities get excluded by the narrative.
I think this human tendency is part of the wisdom of the idea that people who feel the need to pray should pray in private, and not broadcast-style on streetcorners.
I’m not an atheist, but for the most part, personal subjective experiences make me prone to believe that the idea of the soul as a individually discrete supernatural thing is an idea rooted in error.
we don’t know the mechanisms that explain emotions in the first place. So how can they be inadequate to explain what people feel
nothing you’ve suggested about spiritual existences in any way “explains” these emotions in the same way that you demand science “explain” them. In other words, you’re dealing with a double-standard: when it comes to science, “explaination” means “describe the mechanism that defines how it works and why it works the way it does.” But when it comes to the spiritual, it’s enough to “explain” it by giving it a name, nothing more. No mechanism, no explaination of why its like that, or how it works, or how we’d even go about confirming it.
Both of these issues contain a crucial point: if you don’t know what’s going on, then it becomes ludicruous to simply give a name to the mystery (like “soul”) and pretend that you were better off than you were before in terms of understanding anything simply because you named you lack of understanding (especially if “soul” contains a whole lot of other connotations that may have nothing at all to do with the phenomena you are describing, it serves to mislead, not to inform).
The point is: when we’re ignorant, we should admit it, not resort to psuedo-explanations under the flag of mysticism. If we have experiences that we can’t explain, then that’s exactly where we’re stuck until we CAN explain them in some way. I’m not trying to limit the method to empiricism, and indeed I’ve asked over and over for some justification of an alternate method of confirmation that we could use. But without one, when we are ignorant of how something works, the problem is not that we can posit some easy GotG answer: they problem is that we can posit far far too MANY of them: virtually and ad hoc explanation we can imagine.
There is no evidence that thunder gods don’t exist.
I don’t profess belief in thunder gods.
No one is asking you to accept belief is evidence. All I am asking is that you accept that the existence of the belief as evidence. If 10, 000 people told you that they believed that they had never seen a milkmaid with smallpox, would that assist you in forming a judgement about the likelihood of cowpox amongst milkmaids?
You agree that the fact that diverse peoples all believe in a soul is evidence of their experiences. That’s all that is required for it to be evidence of the existence of the soul. You are using that widespread belief to form an opinion about the existence of the soul.
You have admitted that if 50 witnesses saw a man shooting another man, that is evidence of the shooting. You then try to get away form this admission that anecdotal evidence is in fact evidence bysayong that a courtroom experience is ‘different from trying to ascertain an objective truth about the existence of the soul’. Of course it is, but that is irrelevant. All I am trying to establish is that you accept that anecdotal evidence is evidence, which you have done.
Since you seem to be determined to twist around this I am just going to state again that anecdotal evidence is of course a type of evidence by very definition. I will support this with dictionary rfernces if required. If you wish to continue contending that anecdotal evidence is not evidence then you will need to provide something to support it.
Which brings me to my next point. You have dishonestly misrepresented a site. You have twice now claimed that the site you referenced above states that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I don’t care if that site says ‘One of the scientific rules is that anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it’. This is not under dispute. What I want is evidence that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, not whether it is admissiable in science.
Your attempt to cobble together this argument I as ridiculous as my citing Jesus Christ that observational evidence doesn’t cut it in theology, and thereby claiming that observational evidence isn’t evidence.
You are being dishonest, and you have certainly not established your oxymoronic claim that observational evidence is not evidence.
I will once more repeat my requiest: Please quote where I have ever said anything even remotely like “Most people approve of the soul (have favorable emotions towards X). Therefore the soul is true.”
You have failed to do so to date. If you can not do so then apologise for making this strawman and withdraw it.
It appears that you totally fail to undertand what an appeal to authority is. I have said “Many people believe in the soul. That is evidence of the soul"… In the same way I could claim ‘many people believe that Bob shot John. The difference between this and an argumentum ad populum is that I have never said that a majority approve f this. Nor have I said that it proves it.
Simple task Price guy. If this is na argumentum ad populum then you can demonstrate it is so, rather than simply repeating your assertion Please do so, or else withdraw the accusation.
As for this “you agree that science is useful in determining the existence of the soul. From that follows that the primary principles of science are of interest in determining the existence of the soul. If the primary principles of science are observation and reason, then those are of interest in determining the existence of the soul.:
I can’t even make any sense of it. It’s correct as far as it goes, but it is a total non-sequitur.
You stated that only three things hold water in science, which is true, but a non sequitur in its own right. I asked you to explain what the relevance was, and you respond with this. No one is disputing that observation and reason are of interest. Indeed no-one ever did. This remains a total non-sequitur. What is the relevance. Where are you going with this?
You have yet to in any way establish in any way that all knowledge is factual. Why are you heading down this track? You have conceded that I can know things that are counterfactual. You have conceded knowledge can be based on non-factual experiences. What exactly is the basis for your argument that all knowledge is factual?
And since your entire basis for rejecting fessie’s knowledge of the existence of the soul apparently rests on the fact that all knowledge must be factual, I am having trouble seeing what basis your position actually has.
I can’t accept your analogy between “What is the factual basis for my observation that I am afraid? Nothing” and “What’s space exist in? Nothing”. I reject it because the question ‘What does space exist in?’ is nonsensical once one knows the nature of space. Space in this instance is being used as a metaphor for the universe less matter. The very tem universe renders the statement nonsensical. If you want to use any other kind of space, then there is an answer. What does a particular piece of space exist in? The universe. Your analogy only holds up if we are referring o all space, and as I have pointed out that renders the question nonsensical simply because the term used defies further extension.
In contrast “What is the factual basis for my observation that I am afraid” does not contain any terms that defy further extension. Observing I am afraid is not an ultimate state, as ‘universe’ is. As such ‘observation alone is enough for you to know that the observation exists’’ is just like turtles are all the way down.
You are saying that I know that I am afraid because I observe that I am afraid. Then you extend this by saying that the observation is sufficient in itself to provide knowledge of the observation. Well I won’t dispute that, but that does not make the knowledge factual. We still have no facts.
I would not suggest that, simply because I feel afraid is not enough to know that you feel afraid.
You then state that you ‘never implied that experiencing an emotional state was "factual” I know you never explicitely stated this, but that being the case I’m having a hard time understanding what your argument is. If you accept that there is factually based knowledge and non-factually based knowledge (knowledge based solely on experiencing with absolutely no factual basis) then those are two distinct types of knowledge. This was my sole point and the one which you have, I thought, been opposing. If this isn’t the case then I will need to ask you just what it is on my post that you objected to.
Concerning your axioms. I know what an axiom is. I also know that an axiom system can fall to the True Scotsman fallacy. I don’t “insist that an axiom system falls to the True Scotsman fallacy” as you put it. I do insist that it can do so, and that this is precisely what you have done. As you say admit you ‘ created [the] axiom system with the sole purpose of defining what is and is not knowledge’. Since the nature of knowledge is the very thing under dispute, such an axiom is true Scotsman if it defines the subject in manner that precludes any alternatives. It does exactly this and it is a Scotsman.
You have stated that there is only the one type of knowledge. You then introduce axioms for which any other type of knowledge immediately fails to meet the standards. That is either a true Scotsman or else Audiatur et altera pars, which is equally invalid. Exactly which can only be divined by you. Since you clim that you are not changing the definition, but instead introducing axioms with which you have been working all along, then it must be Audiatur et altera pars. Either way any argumeted constructed on these axioms fails.
And no axioms can’t be circular. An argument built on such axioms can be circular when you introduce them post facto into the argument and require them to be accepted as you have done. The trouble with axioms is that they need to be accepted by all sides, and I don’t accept yours. I don’t accept them because the simple fact of accepting them means that your position is true, whereas without those axioms it is untrue.
I can present an axiom that a leg is a tail that will make a dog a pentapod. Introducing that axiom post facto into an argument about the number of pentapods in the planet would be pointless and would in no way establish the truth. Similarly I will not accept your axioms because the make it impossible to establish the truth…\
You ask me to tell you how your axiom fails to mesh with the real world. I have already done so.Your axiom requires that we accept that knowledge is information that is obtained from observation Knowledge can be obtained from any number of sources. For millennia people obtained knowledge from priests and shamans with no observation at all. Knowledge was passed down generation to generation. I myself have knowledge of the Big Bang based on absolutely no observation at all.
Your statement that ‘You can make the claim, but if the claim is unfounded, then you must realize that it is a belief and not knowledge.’ seems blatantly circular. You said that I can not make claims of knowledge about what exists in the rea world without proof, and I showed that I can make claims of knowledge with no proof whatsoever. Retorting that any claim is not knowledge if unfounded simply completes a self referential argument.
I can not know that there is a unicorn in the real world because my statement that I know of the existence of a unicorn can not be knowledge because it is unfounded. Or to put it another way :
I can not know that there is a unicorn in the real world because my statement that I know of the existence of a unicorn can not be about something that I know.
Totally circular.
I’m really having a hard time understanding what your position is ** Joe Random**. You seemed to object to my saying that there is more than one type of knowledge. I attempted to show that there is factual and non-factual knowledge. You now claim that you don’t actually oppose this distinction. Doesn’t that in itself make two types of knowledge?
Re your statement that ‘People who gained “knowledge” from priests and shaman observed the priest or shaman talking” Yes they did observe the preist talking. But that would only give them knowledge of the fact that a preist said something if knowledge is only derived form observation. All they observed was a preist talking. Yet the knowledge they had is of the existence of the Coyote spirit. The knowledge was not base on the observation. The knowledge they gained was not what they observed.
To other things
Concerning my knowledge that sock puppets will ham me, you stated that it can’t be knowledge because it contradicts my experiences. I replied “if it meets all the criteria for the definition of knowledge, then that does make it knowledge. Can yo show me a definition of knowledge which it does not meet?” Your response was the non-sequitur ‘It is an observation which contradicts your knowledge of what sock puppets are and what they are capable of doing.’.
That does not address the point whatsoever. It does not matter whether it contradicts the entire world. So long as it meets all the criteria for the definition of knowledge, then that does make it knowledge. By the very definition.
Your position on this is an argument form assertion. I have shown that it meets all the definitions of knowledge. You have simply re-asserted that ‘Knowledge cannot contradict other knowledge’. That isn’t an argument, it’s a restatement of your position that it can’t be knowledge because it is contradictory. That is the very point that I have already refuted. It must be knowledge, despite being contradictory, because it meets every criteria for knowledge. You know, the duck test? You are running in circles.
Can you take this further, o rare you willing to concede that it does in fact meet every possible criterion for knowledge?
You have completely misrepresented my argument. In fact it runs:
There are two types of knowledge, and we know this because, well, here are examples of two types of knowledge which differ. We know them to be two different types because they have different properties, are obtained in different ways, are utilised in different ways and differ in almost every way possible except for those common properties required to meet the definition of knowledge.
Can you explain how that is circular?
You then ask “What criteria these might that be? From whence comes these criteria? How do we know that they’re valid?
The answer is that the criteria come form the definition of knowledge found in any dictionary you or I care to use. Now in order to discuss knowledge we must agree on a definition obviously. I take it you don’t dispute that. The obvious place for such a definition is an English dictionary. I prefer the OED, but will happily work from any that you choose.
So no, I don’t needn’t “eventually make an assertion that cannot be backed up, just as [you were] forced to do”. Unless you dispute the meaning of ‘knowledge’ found in the OED, and refuse to provide nay other definition, I can simply use that as my support.
And t reiterate, my knowledge that sock puppets will hurt me does meet all the criteria for knowledge.
You claim that ‘The only thing needed to make something knowledge is consistancy with other observations and other knowledge.’ I will ask you to support this. IN non of my dictionaries is this a criterion of knowledge. On what grounds do you make this assertion?
You ask why it is pointless to start from a basis of scientific knowledge. I already explained this. Scientific knowledge by defintion is factual. It is one of the types of knowledge. If you disallow any knowledge but scientific, then by defintion you exclude the other types. It is simply the extension of the true Scotsman. It defines knowledge in such a way as to specifically exclude other types. Therefore it is pointless to argue there are other types of knowledge.
Then you’re basically saying that the evidence of thunder gods is worthless.
There is evidence in favour of conclusion A. There is no evidence pointing away from conclusion A. From that follows that conclusion A is correct. To conclude otherwise, you have to discount the evidence in favour of conclusion A, and in doing that, you’re saying it’s not evidence after all.
You’re not asking me to accept that belief is evidence; you’re asking me to accept that the existence of belief is evidence? I don’t see a difference between those two things.
No, I don’t and never did. I’ve asked you to tell me about the similar experiences of unrelated people, these experiences that you brought into the discussion. The belief in a soul may come from experiences. It may also come from some very smart tribal chief who made up the idea to garner support, and it has then been passed down through the generations. Belief in itself is not evidence.
If I were writing a scientific paper trying to establish that this guy shot that guy, I would need other evidence. If I’m in a courtroom, the situation is totally different. The example has no bearing on the debate.
To me, that’s all that matters. We’re trying to ascertain an objective truth. As far as I know, the only decent instrument for that purpose is science. The rules of science are therefore paramount in this matter. If you don’t think science should be used here, say so.
I haven’t said that observational evidence isn’t evidence, only that anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence. And that is only an oxymoron if “sea monkeys aren’t monkeys” is.
Note the last quote. What you are saying, no matter how you wish to twist it, is that the very fact that many people believe in the soul is evidence of the soul. That is an appeal to popularity.
You do realise that the fallacies are stylised, right? You do realise that you don’t have to literally say exactly “Most people approve…” in order to commit a fallacy?
I haven’t mentioned appeal to authority once in this thread.
So you’re saying that it’s not a logical fallacy to appeal to the beliefs of many people, as long as you don’t appeal to the beliefs of most people? Gee.
I’m trying to point out that anecdotal evidence is totally uninteresting. I’ve tried to tell you this so many ways it’s not even funny. Once again: Only two (note two, not three) things hold water in science. If we’re approaching this matter from a scientific viewpoint, then those two things are what we should use. If you don’t want to use science in this matter, say so. If you do, then you’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that we’re going to use observation and reason, and nothing more.
You mean false? Yes, of course.
No, I said that a conversation within a dream is a nonfactual experience of a conversation. Applying reason to this shows us that the experience wasn’t of a conversation.
Because that’s what separates knowledge from belief. Because the whole point of the word “knowledge” is that it’s based on facts.
No, that’s not the basis. You’re the semanticlover, not me. I’m asking fessie what separates what she calls “knowledge” from belief.
Blake, I’m getting really, really tired. Your entire debating style seems to consist of wearing your opponent out with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and semantic arguments until they say something out of sheer exhaustion that you can twist to suit your argument. I’m going to ask you some simple questions and would appreciate answers:
If the evidence of thunder gods isn’t enough to make you believe in thunder gods even though no counter-evidence exists, what use is it? What point is there in calling it evidence?
Do you think we should use science in trying to ascertain the objective truth of the existence or non-existence of the soul?
Do you realise that whereas ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
I do not suggest that Occams razor be abandoned. My point was imply that Occams razor itself is not a path to the truth. Something may accord entirely with Occam’s razor and still be true, both logically and actually. For example, at some point in history, the geocentric system would have been the prefered model based on old Bill Ockham. That did that prove that the geocentric system was true?
Similarly Ockham’s razor dictates we reject the concept of the soul. DO you believe that proves that there is no soul?
In response to your question ‘I had assumed that you were suggesting that the Sun-centered model makes more sense than the Earth-centered model; if you reject Occam’s Razor, are you then saying that both are equally valid?’ The answer is that yes, they are equally valid. If they both produce the same results with the same predictive power. How could they be otherwise? Isn’t validity determined by applicability to the task intended?
I pointed out that Occams razor is not an argument in itself, just a reason for your belief. You contended that ‘every argument any of us makes here is a statement of what we believe’. I don’t dispute that. However that doesn’t make them any les arguments. As in logical chains of reasoning intended to support a proposition. In contrast Occam’s razor is not a chain of reasoning. It’s just a principal that you chose to apply. I could just as easily apply the principle of ‘Cecil said it so it’s true’. Both would have about equal success and failure rates at determining the truth based on experience, and both of them rely on experience for support, since neither can be proved to be logically valid in and of themselves. SO no, I’m not just saying ‘We’re having a debate’. I’m saying that you chose to apply a principle that doesn’t actually establish anything beyond he fact that you applied that principle. I like that word ‘heu·ris·tic’ you used. It sums it up well’ Occams razor is a speculative formulation which serves as a guide, just like ‘Cecil said it’. It doesn’t establish anything.
You asserted that belief in a soul makes no sense. I responded that it makes plenty of sense to plenty of people. To that you responded that that is somehow an argumentum ad populum. Of course it isn’t because I am not trying to argue anything form it. It is a statement of fact. It makes sense to a lot of people. Your assertion that it makes no sense is proven wrong by the simple fact that I can demonstrate people to whom it does make sense. Sense is Yo,’ I assume, meant to say that it makes no sense to you. Well that’s fair enough. Most quantum physics is beyond me as well That doesn’t mean that quantum physics makes no sense… Not everybody can understand everything the same way.
You claim to ‘have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical’. Well I’ve read the whole thread. All you have done is explained that the reasons for some posters beliefs are nonsensical. That’s fair enough. A couple of days ago I proved that someone’s reasons not to bulldoze he Amazon were nonsensical. That doesn’t mean that it is nonsensical not to bulldoze the Amazon. You must realise that it’s possible to reach a sensible conclusion through nonsensical means? Or do you believe that any conclusion reached through nonsensical means must be nonsensical in itself?
You then go on to criticise the dictionary definition I provided. Yes it’s tautological in some degree. All definitions are if you insist on looking for the definition of every word. If the dictionary contains every word in the English language then obviously every definition must cross reference every other. Whether at 1 step removed or three, it remains tautological by your standards.
Then you go on to say that the definition is not in fact a definition because it doesn’t provide information in every aspect of the word. Do you honestly believe that the definition of ‘engine’ should include all the materials it is made of, the production process, all the uses of engines, the ways in which they interact with the world? I doubt that by your standards you could define anything in less than a small book. To suggest that anything less is not a definition is bizarre. Are you really saying that the OED contains no definitions?
You then ask “how can we even address the concept when the definition changes from person to person”. Simple, ask for a definition. You must realise this is a problem with many term, and not unique to ‘soul’. It applies equally to ‘person’, personality’, ‘disease’ and ‘life’ to name just a few. Despite claiming a total inability to address the subject, you have still written several thousand words dismissing it in no uncertain terms, which seems more than a little contradictory.
You also asserted rather boldly that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the soul. When I pointed out that millions of people worldwide, from cultures that have lost contact millennia ago and that have no other common beliefs will all provide evidence for it, you suddenly become a little e less sweeping. Now you suddenly say that this is not * objective evidence*. Well, no, of course it isn’t. I don’t think that statement comes as s hock to anyone. But your statement that there is no evidence is still untrue.
I pointed out that forcing an either or choice for the seat of consciousness was a false dichotomy.
You asserted that it is neither a strawman nor false dichotomy. Yet you provide no evidence why such a decision has to be made. As such it remains a false dichotomy. Consciousness could reside in both the brain and the soul. The soul itself could reside in the brain. Either of these options being open make it a false dichotomy.
No I am not saying the evidence of thunder gods is worthless. Please quote where I said anything like that? Please stop these strawmen, they are tiresome in the extreme, and serve only as distractions.
As for your argument that ‘There is evidence in favour of conclusion A. There is no evidence pointing away from conclusion A. From that follows that conclusion A is correct’ it’s so simple as to be laughable.
By this argument it was correct that the Earth was flat 2000years, but at some intervening point it became spherical. After all at that point there was evidence in favour of the Earth being flat (conclusion A), and no evidence pointing away from that conclusion (conclusion B). From that follows that conclusion A is correct’.
Do you think maybe you need to rethink this argument of yours?
You claim that you don’t see the difference between ‘accepting belief as evidence’ and ‘accepting that the existence of belief is evidence’. It may not have been well phrased. No one is asking you to accept the belief itself. You do however have to accept that the belief itself points to something.
Anyway, until you provide some support for your position that anecdotal evidence is not evidence despite the fact that it’s even called evidence, I will not continue this line o reasoning. You accept there is anecdotal evidence for the existence of the soul. That is a type of evidence.
You then ask me again to tell you about the similar experiences of unrelated people. And I repeat, I have no intention of digging into reams of material to present you with evidence that unrelated people all believe in a soul. You have already conceded that these people all have experiences with souls. Me telling you about it will not achieve anything that I can see, given that you have conceded that there is anecdotal evidence for the soul.
I fail completely to understand the relevance of ‘If I were writing a scientific paper trying to establish that this guy shot that guy, I would need other evidence. If I’m in a courtroom, the situation is totally different. But we are neither writing a paper nor in a courtroom. We are living our lives. What does it matter what the standard of a scientific paper is? Again, this is irrelevant because you have produced nothing to support your rather bizarre claim that anecdotal evidence is not a type of evidence. Until you do, I leave this here.
You then say that all that matters o you is whether anecdotal evidence is admissible in science. Tell me ** Pricegu**, what makes you believe that he existence of the soul falls within the domain of science? How is such a thing scientific. What sort of logical experiment could you devise to prove the existence of the soul?
And then you state that ‘we’re trying to ascertain an objective truth’. Are we? When was that stated? I tend to be a big supporter of Gould on this one. Ever read “Rocks of Ages”. The existence of the soul falls outside the magesterium of science and objective truths.
I am indeed saying that ‘the very fact that many people believe in the soul is evidence of the soul’. However what I amsaying doing is following the formula that many people believe x, therefore x is right. I am merely pointing out that this is evidence that X exists. Nor am I saying that saying that it’s not a logical fallacy to appeal to the beliefs of many people, as long as you don’t appeal to the beliefs of most people. I am not appealing to belief at all.
I will repeat one last time. If lots of people claim to have seen a rabid bear inside your house, that is grounds not to go in. This is not an appeal to authority, it is simply the apllication of the evidence provided by what people tell you.
Simple question. If your dog gets lost in the woods, and when you find it lots of people tell you that it has become rabid killed people, would you approach it and try to take it home? If not, why not? After all lots of people telling you your dog is rabid isn’t evidence of your dog being rabid apparently, it’s jut an appeal to popularity. If so, and the dog turns out to be rabid, would you think the average person would think you had made alogical choice not to listen to 50+ people who told you the dog was rabid.
I can’t understand how you can be having so much difficulty with such a simple concept. Appeal to popularity = lots of folk say it so it’s true. Anecdotal evidence: lot’s of folk say it, that provides grounds upon which a decision can be made. That you can’t see the difference between those two does not bode well if every person who passes you on the freeway yell sat you that you have a flat. I can only imagine that you would think it logical to keep driving.
You ten assert that anecdotal evidence is totally uninteresting to you. That’s nice. You can be interested in whatever you like. It doesn’t mean that your assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul is any less wrong.
And no, I don’t mean that I can know things that are false. You have conceded that I can know things that are counterfactual. You have conceded that I know that sock puppets will hurt me. Yo have conceded that this is counterfactual.
But it was an experience of a conversation. I experienced it as a conversation. There can be no other interpretation. I did not experience it as a dream. I geneuinely thought it was a conversation.
Your assertion that being factual is what separates knowledge from belief, and that the whole point of the word “knowledge” is that it’s based on facts. is completely circular. It doesn’t answer the question, it just sates the your premises are true because they are. Simply asserting the point that you are trying to believe. I ask again, What exactly is the basis for your argument that all knowledge is factual. And don’t tell me it’s based on the fact that all knowledge is factual. That isn’t a basis, it’s a circular argument. Blind Freddy could see that.
Do you have any reason for believing that all knowledge is factual beyond the fact that the whole point of the word “knowledge” is that it’s based on facts, and we know that the whole point of the word “knowledge” is that it’s based on facts because all knowledge is factual… ad nauseum.
How do you know that being factual is what separates knowledge from belief? What is that based on? It’s just an empty, baseless assertion isn’t it?
Please how me an example of where I have used a non-sequitur?
** Priceguy** you appear to be unable to grasp the mos basic concepts. If you really answer the above by saying that you will ake your rabid pet home, I will simply give up on you and leave others to make of oyu what they will. If you answer in the negative then you will finally have graped the difference between anecdotal evidence and an appeal topopularity. Then we can get somehwhere.
You are dishonest in the extreme in stating that that website said that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. You claimed that is what it said. It doesn’t. At the very leat you must withdraw your false assertion that it dos. I would appreciate an apology for being misleading as well.
Yes I think we should use science in trying to ascertain the objective truth of the existence or non-existence of the soul? However as Gould says, how exactly could we do so? What rational experiment can we perform? It is well beyond the realm of current science. I
Do I realise that whereas ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? No, I don’t. Where is it written that claims require any evidence at all, ordinary, extraordinary, transmundane or otherwise?
Well you can apologise for misleading me and other posters by misquoting a webpage.
You can stop repating the lie that there is no evidence for the exisenceof the soul.
You can do me the courtesy of answeringmy direct questions ot you above, or else withdraw your statement about a appeal to popularity and admit oyu don’t understand the term.
You could withdraw all your statemst that have been proven wrong.
There are all sorts of things you can do that would be decent without being scientific.
Do you believe that science is the only way to get answers?
Do you beleive that because your fallacious and ignorant argumnts are directed towards a scientific solution, that makes them correct despite the glaring errors?
Do you believe that because you are only intersted in science that excuses bad manners and the dissemination of ignorance?
The trouble is that you said that you assreted that my position was wrong. Not wrong scientifically but wrong logically. Rather obviously you were competely off base and operating under conditions which you had no right to assume.
Simply because I can’t see any possible scientific potential for proving the existence does not make my position any less solid. However the facts that your position hinges entirely on misapplying science in a field in which it clearly cannot work, and that it does not stand up to logical debate tell us something about its strength.
I didn’t. It said exactly what I said it said. I didn’t know that you didn’t care about science.
There is none, provided we’re looking for objective truths. You have finally stated that you’re not.
The difference between what you did and the textbook definition of appeal to popularity is mere degree. You: “that’s evidence of it being true”. Textbook: “that means it’s true”.
Can’t remember any.
About objective truths? Yep.
Incorrectly stated question. I have made no fallacious or ignorant arguments, and they have no glaring errors.
My manners are no worse than yours, and I haven’t spread ignorance.
Yes, I operated under the conditions that we were looking for an objective truth, since debating a subjective truth is utterly pointless.
By the way, the first time I asked you whether you found science useless in determining the existence of the soul, you might have answered a truthful “yes” instead of “not at all”. That would have saved us both a lot of trouble.
My dear Blake - I am reasonably certain that I never said I could prove there is no soul. If I ever did say that, I will retract it immediately. You are absolutely correct - Occam’s Razor does not prove negatives. As you said, the usual wording of the Razor clues one in to that right away.
You try to discredit the Razor by applying 20/20 hindsight to a theory that is known to have been discredited. I don’t see how that is applicable to how we should live our lives. We unfortunately do not have the benefit of a time machine that allows us to travel to the future and see how whatever explanation we chose pans out.
Surely you know how science works: We do not disprove things; we amass evidence so that a given proposition becomes more and more likely (or less and less likely). When there is enough evidence for a proposition, we get to a point that we consider it highly probable. That’s all science can do. We know that new evidence could come along at any time that might contradict what we already know. As already pointed out, that is a strength rather than a weakness.
So what do we do when there are 2 (or more) competing theories to explain a given phenomenon? We choose the one that makes the most sense, has the most evidence to back it up, and uses the fewest extraneous entities to explain itself.
For example, I could tell you that my car is solar-powered. It’s much easier to make the assertion than it is to disprove it. You could point out the gasoline tank, fuel pump, fuel injectors, piston chambers, etc.; but then I could say that those are just extraneous devices that don’t makes the car run. You say, “how does it run at night?”. I say, “It has an invisible solar collector that stores the energy during the day”. You say, “By what mechanism does it convert radiation energy into rotational force?” I say, “It’s beyond your understanding; it’s tied into the solar-ness of the universe.” If I am allowed to posit anything I want, and not required to provide any evidence other than my belief that it’s true, you can’t disprove it. In the end, how do you determine that I’m mistaken? You pick the explanation without the extraneous features (the car is gasoline-powered).
The only way of looking at the universe that makes sense to me is to reserve judgment on any given proposition, and not believe it until I have a reason to do so. And I can’t just take the beliefs of others at face value. You have to ask yourself: “Do we live in a world where all beliefs held by people are true, or do we live in a world where people hold false beliefs?” Unless you are prepared to accept that aliens are beaming signals into our brains, for example (a lot of people believe this), the answer has to be the latter.
I disagree. The geocentric model raises more unanswered questions, but fails to increase our understanding over the Sun-centered model. For example - what are the rotating spheres made out of? Are the points of light that we see affixed to the spheres, or shining through holes in the spheres? Why does red-shift data for the distance of stars contradict the theory? How does the background radiation fit the theory? If I were an astonomer, I could probably come up with a hundred reasons why it’s a lame theory.
I don’t think I can argue with that. Given the option of believing in an INFINITE number of superflous explanations for every known phenomenon, and the ensuing total mental chaos, or believing only the number of explanation required to explain the phenomenon, I choose against debilitating mental chaos. Yes, it’s a choice on my part. So, what exactly was your point?
**Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)
Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the “Appeal to Emotion” because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.**
Seems to me this is exactly what you are doing.
That’s not a good analogy. Quantum physics is clearly based on empirical experiments. Scientists cause particles to collide and physically measure the results. There have been countless real-world applications of the principles. Tell me what analogous empirical experimentation has been done regarding souls.
I can only refute what is posited. It’s easy for you to say “Well, what about the other arguments?” So far in my life, I haven’t heard any reasonable explanation of what a soul is or why I should believe it exists. If you have such information - BY ALL MEANS POST IT HERE.
Your point eludes me. Are you giving credence to the idea that an unsubstantiated line of reasoning might yield a correct result merely by chance? So what? How would you know it was right?
That makes no sense. All definitions are most certainly not tautological. Your definition said nothing other than a soul is a spirit and a spirit is a soul, and it lives forever. And then the implication seems to be that I must believe it to be real unless I can disprove its existence. I say, disprove what? Can you disprove floofarb?
If we’re talking about an internal-combustion engine, it would be nice to include some mention of igniting gasses inside sealed combustion chambers in order to push pistons that turn a crankshaft, yes. Then we would know what we’re talking about. Is my definition tautological? I don’t think it is.
What’s an OED?
Bullshit. Please quote where I “dismissed” it. What I’ve said all along is that I don’t believe it because there’s no objective evidence for it, and because it’s not sufficiently defined.
Bullshit again. I have been careful to say no objective evidence, or no empirical evidence. And if I slipped up once and forgot the qualifier, you surely could have inferred it from the fact that I qualified it every other time.
For you to come to the conclusion that I said that, I can only assume that you have not understood a single word I have written.:rolleyes:
I ask you this, why on Earth would I have spent so much time explaining why anecdotal evidence is not objectively valid, if I didn’t think there were any? Are we reading the same thread here?
I already explained why I think that explanation is faulty. If you refuse to apply Occam’s Razor, then I would ask you this: How you know that consciousness does not reside in the brain, the soul, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the fooflarb, the xdiwlqjnoewrj, and seven million other undefined entities?
I do find it funny that alot of posts here portray scientists as pillars of objectivity that rely soley on empirical evidence to prove/disprove a given theory. Has anyone here actually met a scientist? lol
Scientist’s, by and large, are generally not very objective people. For every once scientist who claims something as fact, another one claims as false. If you dont belive me, pick any number of published journals and take a read thru…you will be amazed!
While I agree science has improved the human condition, I do not agree that simply because a scientist says something is true, makes it true.
No matter what idea is being presented, there are always dissenting opinions. Some are more well thought out than others, and the less evidence there is for something, the more dissention there will be.
This is a good thing. If scientific concepts weren’t ever looked at with scrutiny and tested whenever there was any doubt of their validity, then science would be worthless.
No one is arguing that that is the case. The great thing about science is that normal people can do the experiments themselves if they have access to the proper equpiment. And if they don’t, they can read up on the details of the experiment, and determine if the process used makes sense. Also, any experiment that is of any importance is going to end up being performed by multiple, non-associated scientific groups, so there is little worry of people just making stuff up.
That is a far cry from believing that something is true just because some scientist said so.
I think you completely missed the point, because what you cite as a failure of science is actually the same thing that we said was its strength. Go back and look at those posts again; I think you will notice that nobody said anything is true because one scientist said it. What you are going to find is that several of us said that science is self-correcting precisely because of the fact that assertions are constantly challenged. Earlier, I referred to the principles of peer-review and duplication, and explained how they help to constantly refine our knowledge. So while you may see peer-review as bickering, and duplication as scientists not trusting each other, they are actually very important tools to ensure objectivity.
And I’m really getting tired of pointing this out, but I never said science was perfect. It’s just better than the alternative of simply believing whatever the hell you feel like. I think the famous quote about democracy could apply to science as well: “It’s the worst system we have - except all the others.”
Quote:Would it ever be possible to hold a spiritual discussion without blowero, Apos, etc., (others of nonspiritual minds) totally changing the flow of discussion, then piling on someone whom is truly interested in the discussion?
blowero and Apos are correct however. There is no evidence that the soul exists and it seems a bit unkind to call them “non-spiritual minds” when, if they have a soul as many believe, no one here knows what is in thier hearts (aka soul in this context) Sure, there have been millions and millions of words said and written on the subject but volume is not the same as proof. Just look at all that is published on Area 51 in Roswell NM. Since you can’t prove a negative, they say aliens must exist because I can’t prove they don’t. But look at it like this, here we have a secrete government facility that tests experimental aircraft and weapons systems, and people see strange things in the sky. Well… duh!
I have some experience in “para-normal” research and there has never been any evidence that dreaming soul projection or the like works. No one has ever brought back any inormation that they did not already know. Many have claimed they could do this but when put in a situation that prevented cheating they fail every time.
Consider this; if, for the sake of this discussion, science is able to prove the existence of the soul then the soul must have some physical property. It must at least effect some physical object, atom, energy, field etc. at some level. If the soul has no physical effect then there can be no scientific proof that it exists. So, if the soul has some physical property then, in theory, we could build systems that could effect the soul. We could manipulate, change, maybe even destroy it. I’m not sure that the counstruction of a “God Machine” is a good idea. Ever see 1984?
Bottom line: Do not use science for proof that the soul exists.
** blowero**, I have never tried to discredit Occam’s Razor, so please don’t utilise the strawman that I did. You claimed that Ockhams razor told you to choose something. I pointed out that Occam’s razor is not a path to establishing the truth, it is at best a guide. You have concded this point, which is all that I wanted to achive.
You conced that Occam’s Rzaor is just a guid based on exprerience a heuristic argument as you put it. I have other guides based on experience, and they lead me to another conclusion. Those conclusions are no less valid than yours for being based on other heuristic arguments.
I will more or less paraphrase what I said to Priceguy. You are working under an unwarranted assumption that science must be applied to a debate on the existence of the soul. There is no reason why we must apply science to this debate.
You see, science is a tool, and like all tools it works very well for the task for which it was designed, and it works les and less well as the task to which it is applied becomes more divergent from the task for which it was designed.
Me, I like to do a bit of woodworking occasionally. I’m nor very good at it, but it keeps the hands busy and gives me time to think. Now, I have a claw hammer. I find it’s just the shot for driving nails. Occasionally I buy coconuts. I also use the claw hammer to open them. It works, but not very well. A machete or a saw would be much more sensible. Occasionally my work requires me to collect insects. I never use the claw hammer for chasing flies. It would work to a point, but it’s just not the appropriate tool.
The same applies to science. You are trying to apply science to a task for which it was never designed. And moreover you are making assertions based on an assumption that everyone else should also misapply science to this end.
You say that the only way you can look at the universe that makes sense is to reserve judgment on any given proposition, and not believe it until you have a reason to do so. Well we both agree on that point at least. Nor do I take the beliefs of others at face value.
I stated that the geocentic and current modals of the solar system are are both equally valid if they both produce the same results with the same predictive power. You disagreed on various grounds. Your use of red shift data and background radiation are invalid. If the geocentric model can’t explain them then it doesn’t have the same predictive power. Stating that the geocentric model is less valid because it doesn’t address what the spheres are made of is slightly more reasonable, but I can easily respond to that by saying ‘cold dark matter’.
My point is was and always has been that Occam’s razor is ot alogical argument I itself. It is a choice made based on a belief. You have conceded that point now so I can let it rest.
You asserted that belief in a soul makes no sense. I proved that this is false by demonstrating that it makes sense to many people. Now you claim that this somehow fits the form that ‘The belief that the soul makes sense is true because it is widely held to be true that the soul makes sense. Where have I ever applied such an argument? Where have I ever said that it is widely held to be true that the soul makes sense? All I have ever said is that the soul does make sense to many people. That is a statement of fact, and one that I assume you don’t dispute. I am not saying that this it is widely held that I makes sense. I am saying that it does make sense. Making sense is subjective. Something may make sense to me but not to you, as you have conceded. The soul makes sense to many people. You are making the blanket assertion that it doesn’t make sense to anyone. If you wish to continue arguing based on this assertion I will need to see some evidence that the sol makes no sense to anyone. Otherwise you can rephrase you assetion as’ The soul makes no sense to me’.
You ask what experimentation analogous to quantum physics experiments have been done regarding souls. Well none of course. Nor did I ever claim that they had. My point is that many things that are true don’t make sense to me. That does not prove that it makes no sense to anyone. Similarly the existence of the soul does not make sense to you. That does not prove your assertion that concept of the soul makes no sense to anyone.
You have made a blanket assertion that the sol makes no sense to anyone without anything to support it. I assume you mean that you don’t understand it, which is fair enough. As I said, I don’t understand most quantum physics.
Blowero no one expects you to refute everything. All that I expect is that you don’t make blanket assertions such as ‘the existence of the soul makes no sense to anyone’ and that ‘you have spent the whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical’ when you have done no such thing.
Yes I am indeed giving credence to the idea that an unsubstantiated line of reasoning might yield a correct result merely by chance.
So what? So it demonstrates that merely explaining why one line of reasoning leading to a conclusion is nonsensical is not the same as explaining that the conclusion is nonsensical. You claimed that you had explained why the existence of the soul is nonsensical, when all you had explained is that particular line of reasoning leading to that conclusion is nonsensical.
Are you asserting that an unsubstantiated line of reasoning can never yield a correct result merely by chance?
Where did I ever imply that? Please provide a quote or else retract this strawman. You can believe whatever you like.
You made the erroneous assertion that no one had ever defined ‘soul’. I provided a reputable reference to where someone had defined a soul. As such your argument, which is based on that assertion is flawed and can be disregarded. Nothing else was ever implied.
Well we’re not talking about ‘internal combustion engine’, we’re talking about ‘engine’. Now you have asserted that any definition of a noun must provide information on the materials of which the object is made, the prupose the object and the tasks it performs.
I challenge you to find any dictionary which does this for the noun ‘engine’.
Clearly your assertion that these things are required for a defintion is untrue. If it is true then the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the premier source of definitions, in fact contains no definitions.
Are you still clinging to you position that would require us to admit that the OED contains no definitions?
It being the soul model of consciousness. Right here :
“The soul model of consciousness does not make more sense. In fact, it makes no sense at all. It’s not even defined, and there’s not a lick of objective evidence to support it.”
You have clearly “refused to accept or recognize the soul model of consciousness. You have rejected the soul model of consciousness. You have, in other words, dismissed it.:
You now have a choice Blowero. You can either state clearly that you accept and recognize the soul model of consciousness, or you can apologise for calling bullshit.
Sorry, but I didn’t infer that. If that’s all that you are saying then you have no dispute with me on this issue, and if I am sorry for misrepresenting you.
I thought that you were running with Priceguy’s bizarro argument that anecdotal evidence at all. My mistake, and I apologise yet again.
You state that you already explained why you think that an explanation requiring consciousness reside in both the brain and the soul, or the soul itself to reside in the brain.is faulty. And so you have. But that does not in any way make an assertion that the soul must reside in either the brain or the soul less of a strawman.
I can’t know that. I don’t believe hat they do however.
I will now ask you the same question:
How can you knowthat consciousness does not reside in the brain, the soul, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the fooflarb, the xdiwlqjnoewrj, and seven million other undefined entities? Note that I am asking how you know this, not why you believe it.
Science can never prove anything, so how can you know this based on science?
Priceguy I think we’ve established tht you are dishonest and disingenuous. You refuse to answer direct questions, you misrepresented and wose yet misquited a refernce. Your argument has been shown to be based on logical falacies. When you are prepared to answer direct questions then I will reposnd to yours. Until then I think we can discount your position.