But nobody claims that radio waves are supernatural. They exist. They can be detected, measured & quantified. This statement makes no sense.
**
Just what the fresh hell is an “inner sense”? Senses are biological capacities that allow us to examine the world. They look outward not inward.
**
To reject or ignore the very many attempts to meaure so-called “supernatural phenomina” that have taken place, starting in the 19th Century, is obdurate & foolish.
**
“Closed-minded”? Scientists have tried, for decades, to discover if there is anything to this. It always peters out. The “psychics” turn out to be frauds, or well-meaning but self-deluded people. The “ghosts” are air bubbles in the pipes, or mischevious children. And if Bigfoot was real, how come nobody in gun-happy America has shot one yet?
**
Informed opinion, lekatt and theories based on information.
Whereas you have superstitions, con artist swindles enshrined as miracles, and grainy/doctored photos.
If it’s real, do it under reproducable conditions. :rolleyes:
Hello again, Leroy. I will let the other contributors here provide the answers to the specific questions you ask, assuming they are asked in good faith (which could be demonstrated by actually reading Susan Blackmore’s book, or perhaps Rachmanadrans “Phantoms in the Brain” or Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” for the more biological questions).
I have four questions for you:
Do you know what argument ad populum is, and if so do you agree that it is a logical fallacy?
Do you know what argument ad antiquitatem is, and if so do you agree that it is a logical fallacy?
Do you know what argumentum ad ignorantiam is, and if so do you agree that it is a logical fallacy?
If your answer is “yes” to all four questions, there is one further question:
Do you deny that you have put forward all four of these logical fallacies in this thread?
Don’t really care about your “fallacies”, they mean nothing to reality. I am reading an article now about proof of life after death, just published. Let you know if it is something good.
I have been involved in these sorts of debates across dozens of web-sites and message boards as well as in face to face, non cyberspace settings.Have engaged everyone from Jack Chick tract toting fundies to alien clone theorizing Raeliens.I have gotten into it with senior citizens who truly believed the earth was flat and with teenagers who thought that a giant spaceship was hovering over the US waiting to blow the white house to kingdom come(ala NOI “Mother Wheel”).
And yet I have NEVER heard ANYTHING quite as ridiculous as what Lekatt posted above!Lekatt, logic is not some ambiguous set of rules we have constructed to throw supernaturalists off!A logical fallacy is like a lie(not in definition but in it’s nature).No one made up the term “lie” just so people claiming to be the King of Siam’s french cousin twice removed would be unfairly prejudiced against!A “lie” is simply when someone communicates something they know is not true and it applies to everyone who might do so.
Likewise, a logical fallacy is an argument that violates logic in the same way that a lie violates truthfullness or honest discourse.
It is only easy to dismiss logic when one has not a clue as to what it is.You will be very hard pressed to find even people who believe in NDEs/spirits who will assent to your dismissal of logic.Most believers even will TRY to see that they are not commiting such obvious errors!
Because according to the one you gave, the answer “God created everything unto it’s kind” would be the simpler explanation.Not so much a contradiction as it is simply too vague to be useful.
**
No I do not make my living as a scientist but what in the name of Greg Brady does that have to do with the actual definition of Occam’s Razor?
Of course not!?!I am a skeptic for crying out loud!
**
I was speaking in general about human beings of course.I am aware that individuals may not have full, optimum use of their brains for whatever reason.I think my meaning was ratehr obvious that there is no area of the brain for which we cannot understand it’s basic function.There is no area responsoible for sending and recieving strange extra sensory signals and such.
**
Of course, which only supports the skeptic’s position that many so called “mystical experiences” are simply naturally occuring hallucinations.
Well I guess this depends on your assumptions.If you think that the brain has all sorts of wondrous paranormal functions such as ESP, telepathy, telekinesis, aura-sensing etc. then you probably think we have not begun to understand the brain yet.
I make no such assumptions and I know that there is not nearly so much of the brain that is not understood as people would like to believe.
Uh? SentientMeat’s fallacies? These are ancient fallacies that just about anyone who applies their spirit honestly and without prejudice agree on. The only reason I think you don’t care is because you have covered your ears and closed your mind to anything critical being said about what you believe in. You have abandoned your faculties entirely.
Logic is not nonsense. If you believe A = NOT A, there’s really no point at all in discussing anything with anyone in this forum. How can we agree if you think inter-subjectivity is entirely non-existent and you break asunder the very spirit you are?
Again, these fallacies are not SentientMeat’s inventions. Nor are they the invention of “Scientists”. They have been considered applicable to reality for millennia by the most varied of people. Medieval scholars have used them to properly approach God, the Supreme Being!
Trying to avoid fallacies is not the sign of a narrow-minded character. It’s very very hard at times. And unforgiving to your own short-comings. Yes, it’s a tool for weaning out what’s true from what’s not, and in that sense it’s “narrowing”. You can be entirely logical and still have epiphany. They are not mutually exclusive! I think you’re just too lazy, close-minded and prejudice to consider what is being said to you. And by the way the only way to realize the truth of logic and these fallacies, is through introspection, through profound meditation on the spirit itself…
Since we’re discussing logical fallacies, consider one of JThunder’s accusations of circular arguments and the line of argument developed:
**–JThunder
JThunder, aren’t you yourself begging the question by your own proposition that we must accept the assumption that there could be something outside of what we would define as what is in nature?
It appears that you are arguing that there could something outside of nature (i.e., the supernatural) and we must accept that premise. You challenge those who take the stand that the paradigm for their understanding includes only that which they can show to be part of nature. You argue that for them to argue otherwise–the supernatural cannot be proven by natural laws–is to propose circular arguments. Your own type of argument, however, is begging the question, an equally fallacious type of argument. It appears that you propose that any consideration of what does exist must automatically include the possibility of the supernatural that is free to use or ignore natural law. I disagree that we must accept that assumption.
Someone could argue that there could be supernatural scrps that swarm around our heads at night, that read our thoughts and take our thoughts to supernatural scrpswebs in the sky simply because he believes we experience such things. Would you argue that not to accept the assumption that these scrps could exist because there is no indication of their natural existence is to propose a circular argument? But that is a classic example of begging the question: basing an argument on an assumption, one that the audience must accept as a possibility or truth, when, in fact, the assumption itself is questionable.
However, we do not need to accept the assumption that the supernatural could exist. We do not need to accept any questionable assumption when proposing arguments. What we do is consider well-developed arguments of opposing viewpoints, but we never have to accept dubious assumptions proposed by the opposition as being fact. In fact, it is incumbent upon us to question assumptions and ask that those assumptions be shown to be true. That is the nature of logical argument.
[And, JThunder, I have enjoyed reading your arguments, but I offer the above observations in the spirit of honing debate skills. I hope you’ve taken no offense as I will not in a counter argument.]
No, because for the purposes of this debate, I am not claiming that there is necessarily anything supernatural. Rather, I’m merely pointing out that statements such as “Nature is all that exists” or “The universe is all that exists” are invalid arguments, since they amount to circular reasoning.
In fact, note that all attempts to defend such claims have required invoking false definitions for “nature” and “universe” – alleged definitions which are easily disproven by opening up a dictionary. Attempts to pat and taking taking tremendous liberties with what one identifies as “physical laws.” (I daresay that the overwhelming majority of physicists would not consider statements such as “God can do whatever He desires” to be a “law of physics”!)
Besides, I think you misunderstand the nature of a circular argument. A circular argument occurs when you use Statement A to defend Statement A. At no point did I use the statement “There might be something outside nature” to defend the claim that “There might be something outside nature.” Rather, my approach was merely to point out that the arguments presented against the supernatural so far have implicitly assumed that nature encompasses everything in existence – in other words, they assume the very thing which they purport to prove.
Well, what does one say to that? (Incidentally, they are not mine, they are yours, without inverted commas.)
I can think of no other response on your part which would turn other people away from your position so quickly. In a forum called “Great Debates”, you are eschewing logic. Without logic, we might as well speak gibberish at each other, no?
Please understand, Leroy, I am trying to help you argue for the existence of the supernatural: variety is the spice of life and I welcome the diversity you bring to these boards.
Unfortunately, you may now be known simply as the guy who doesn’t care about logical fallacies in his arguments. I must say, you’ve disappointed me.
I’m sorry, but I have to agree with JThunder here. Certainly, it would be the most logical to assume that there is nothing that exists outside of the scope of natural science, by which we mean physical science, by which we mean physics.
But it may not be entirely correct. We have, by necessity, no proof that something we can not detect does not exist. And yes, that’s a triple negative. It is doubtful. Improbable. But it may exist. A perfect example of this would be life after death, in one of the many forms appearing in many religions of the world. As far as I can tell, there is no way to prove, scientifically, if it exists or not. It is a unknown existing outside of science.
It is not impossible that one of the Randi claimants has supernatural powers. All that we can do is test them, and try to eliminate all natural sources of input. As yet, there is no one who has passed that step. But what if, one day, there is?
It can not be completely eliminated as an option. This does not mean it is the most likely option of those existing. It does not mean that unfalsifiable statements are useful. It simply means that we have to keep an open mind and critically examine everything we see, including our preconceptions.
Something that cannot affect the world in which we exist cannot be said to exist relative to us by definition.
If a thing with absolutely no detectable properties can be said to exist, then what doesn’t exist?
“I claim that unicorns exist.”
“In what way do you support your claim?”
“I can’t find the least evidence of unicorns, not the tiniest smidgeon of data that would result from their existing. Therefore they must exist.”
“Oh, jolly good.”
[rolls eyes]
By definition, no one Randi tests will ever have abilities beyond and outside the laws of nature. Someone might have abilities that transcend the currently known human senses; someone might even have an ability that contradicts our current theories about the laws of physics. But an ability that goes beyond the actual laws of physics, the way reality works? Impossible by definition.
What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
Well, I’d have to say the universe ceases to exist and is replaced by something even stranger. Some theorize this has already happened.
Why is it impossible for there to be something that goes beyond the actual laws of physics? As far as I can tell, the only necessity for that to happen is for it to be a truly irrational event, one that can not be repeated under controlled circumstances. Something that can not be analyzed by the scientific method.
In short, magic.
I’m not saying it exists, I’m just having trouble seeing where it is necessarially excluded from existance. It can not be accounted for, it can not be a part of any scientific theory or logical situation, but I don’t see why that could stop it from happening.
Basically, and I’m going to be blatant here, let’s take the Bible. Let’s say God said, okay, the sun will stop in the heavens for 24 hours. It does so. Then he moves it to exactly where it would be if it had progressed through its path… right, perspective, moves Earth to where it would be if it had progressed through its path, and sufficiently moves the consequental planets as if Earth had been where it belonged.
How could you tell? How can you prove it doesn’t happen?
It’s the same category of thing as the theory that the universe was created five years ago, as if it were 5.5 billion years old. You can’t disprove the theory. All you can say is that it is not useful, that it can not be a tool of any sort, and that it is essentially irrelevant.
Who said the universe was constrained by human rationality? We base our theories on the way the universe works, not vice versa.
An event that we were unable to explain, one that directly contradicted our most basic theories about the nature of the world, would still not contradict any of the laws of physics BY DEFINITION.
“Magic” doesn’t involve violating the laws, it’s just a manifestation of those laws that someone doesn’t understand.
Well, then, a step further back, and, if you recall, I pointed to God. Who exists outside of the universe, if you can use Genesis as a cite. Existing outside of the universe would imply that this god is not constrained by the laws of said universe.
As I said, it appears to be in the same category of someone having created the universe last thursday, memories intact, fossils in the ground, and light already on the way.
How is this a manefestation of laws that someone doesn’t understand? Science assumes that the universe is playing fair. Magic is someone running a trainer on the universe, playing with strings from the outside.
Because if such a thing can be demonstrated to exist, then it becomes a new law. Take quantum mechanics, for example. The data doesn’t fit with our classical conception of the universe at all. So what did we do? Do we call it “magic”? No, we accept the fact that subatomic particles exist, and that they behave in certain ways, and that becomes part of our knowledge OF THE UNIVERSE. There is no “beyond the actual laws of physics”, because the “laws” are constantly revised. You have it exactly backwards. The laws are not set in stone, they are merely descriptions of what we observe. If we observe something that doesn’t fit the laws, the LAWS must change.
While it might be possible for such an event to occur, it is meaningless to discuss it, because there would be no way to ascertain whether such an event actually occurred.
From your scenario above, you are describing a hypothetical event that occurs that cannot be repeated under controlled circumstances, and that is somehow immune to the laws of physics. For such a thing to occur would mean that the universe is not predictable. If a thing can be subject to certain laws one day, and not subject to them the next day, then there are no laws for that phenomenon to be outside of.
If apples start falling up tomorrow, it doesn’t mean they are “outside” the law of gravity; it means our conceptualization of gravity is wrong.
Sounds about right to me. It can’t be proven to have happened or to have not happened.
Yep. That’s exactly what I’m trying to hypothesize. Magic. The supernatural. A way for it to be defined in a way that it violates the laws of physics. I think that’s the best way to go about it.
Science is the process of forming hypothesis of cause and effect. If cause and effect has no relationship to a process, then it can not be defined as a law. Hm. Might have to also make sure there are no a-casual relationships that are repeatable, such as synchronicity, as well.
As far as we can tell, it didn’t happen. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened, it’s just highly improbable that it did. I’m using a well known story to try to define a supernatural event. In it, we have a force outside the universe creating a result that violates all the natural laws. Works for me.
… I do not have to believe in the supernatural to attempt to define it. I’m just pointing out that occam’s razor states the simplest explanation is most likely to be true, and not by definition true. For example, if I appear in the hallway of the fifth story of a building, the simplest explanation is that I took the elevator. However, I usually go up the stairs, despite it being more complicated.
I think in Demon Haunted World, Sagan makes a comment that it is not impossible for one’s molecules to spontanteously flow under a door and reassemble on the other side. It just ain’t likely.
Can we stop using this word LAW for scientific models? If we stopped using it maybe this nonsense about VIOLATING something would stop. Just like Blowero is pointing out, if we can agree that supernatural phenomena do occur, we will simply need to change our scientific models. How can a sensation “violate” a “true” description that supposedly describes it? If the description violates what it puports to describe, it simply isn’t true! The description is incorrect and we have to change it.
If some entity can interact with the world, then that entity and the rest of the world are part of the same universe. Either this God doesn’t exist in the same universe as we do – in which case it couldn’t affect anything and couldn’t be said to exist relative to us – or it can interact with things and is part of the universe.
** That would involve creating a past and a future, too. Quite right. But this creation would take place outside of the universe and couldn’t be said to have taken place relative to us at all.
That’s a double-edged sword; if you say there’s no cause and effect, then you can’t say that your “magic” caused the phenomemon of which you speak. You can’t have it both ways.
Why do you keep referring to “natural laws” as if they are prescriptive, rather than descriptive? How many times do we have to point it out before you acknowledge it?
Using a well-known, but untrue story may work for you, but it doesn’t work for me.
That’s the strangest application of Occam’s Razor I’ve ever heard. The problem is, you need to include the qualifier “all other things being equal”. When we consider your predilection toward using the stairs, the elevator is NOT the most likely explanation.
Yep. What’s your point?
I wouldn’t define it. It is a meaningless character string. The way the word is commonly used, though, is as a synonym for ignorance. It’s a label attached to an event that is either imaginary or not understood.