[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I love science probably more than most I debate in here; I read journals for pleasure like others read the newspaper. You don't understand the difference between and unknown and a known contradiction. You wrap all questions up into the wrapper of "I don't know" regardless of how much contradiction the evidence presents, and simply can never reach the point where something logically just plain does not have an answer.

Certainly there are things that we can observe and measure and we have no clue as to how it works, or why. I remember being a child and asking "why do magnets attract?" and no one ever being able to answer it. Comes to find out, we still really cannot explain how the force travels or why. We can describe magnetism eight ways from Sunday. We can measure it at atomic scales. We can reproduce it and change it.

But the fact that I still don't have a "why?" that satisfies me does not mean that there is no answer. It just means I don't have it yet. I don't know. That doesn't mean I'm going to give up. It doesn't mean that I'll be disappointed if I never know.

If you want to call my position "faith", fine, sure. I don't see a problem with being comfortable with not knowing, though.

---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 03:33 PM ----------

Summary of conclusions:

Vogon Poet: Some things don't have answers.

Polymath20: I know, and I'm okay with that.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by dala To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point isn't that there is no problem (I have never heard anyone argue that), it's that God doesn't solve the problem.

The point actually goes beyond that. It's that scientism denies the existence of the unknowable in a universe bound by the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. Unknowable does exist, mathematically and physically.

---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 04:43 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you want to call my position "faith", fine, sure. I don't see a problem with being comfortable with not knowing, though. ---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 03:33 PM ---------- Summary of conclusions: Vogon Poet: Some things don't have answers. Polymath20: I know, and I'm okay with that.

There are implications to tautologies governing us from beyond causality. That is the greater point. The answer cannot be found within the scientific method. You can remain in ignorant bliss, or continue the search by other rational methods beyond scientism.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are implications to tautologies governing us from beyond causality. That is the greater point. The answer cannot be found within the scientific method. You can remain in ignorant bliss, or continue the search by other rational methods beyond scientism.

So much for unprovable assertions
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And tell me, what other "rational methods" are there? What is the great limitation of the scientific method?

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So much for unprovable assertions To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. And tell me, what other "rational methods" are there? What is the great limitation of the scientific method?

Applied sciences. Scientism tries to squeeze everything within the pure sciences and it fails.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	snip.

Note that two pages into this thread, I haven't seem - and have not scoured - for a definition of 'Scientism'. Regardless, I'll agree to the point that there is a 'beyond Scientism' and start from there>>

On to other possible elements regarding your OP - What is the 'scientific method' to your mind ? Specifically ? Does it depend on the broader foundation of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

The sensual experience allow us to gather information via transformation as
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

At this point is where it is common to find those who adhere to Scientism by dismissing the information
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
on some trumped up grounds ...

	Observation is an activity of a living being, such as a human, which is necessary in order to receive knowledge of the world or about the environment through the senses, which often later involves the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments.

... and only accepting information for the latter element of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	An experiment is a methodical procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results.

There is no logical reason to do so under these definitional conditions.

For example, Campbell as a formally trained, educated and vocational scientist has written his TOE(
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) with just such an approach.

Your choice of Theism which in minimally better the Scientism, fails on the experimental grounds; as I understand, the rigorous experimentation Campbell has carried out in over 35 + years indicates there is no anthropomorphic Deity. What was found puts even that mental construct down to a lack of imagination in comparison.

---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 03:41 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Applied sciences. Scientism tries to squeeze everything within the pure sciences and it fails.

I can agree that is a present failure as it is practiced, now.

---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 03:43 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So much for unprovable assertions To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. And tell me, what other "rational methods" are there? What is the great limitation of the scientific method?

Do you define 'unprovable' in the material sense, only ?

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Note that two pages into this thread, I haven't seem - and have not scoured - for a definition of 'Scientism'. Regardless, I'll agree to the point that there is a 'beyond Scientism' and start from there>> On to other possible elements regarding your OP - What is the 'scientific method' to your mind ? Specifically ? Does it depend on the broader foundation of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :

No,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
describes people who constrain all knowledge to the natural sciences. Empiricism includes applied sciences.

The sensual experience allow us to gather information via transformation as To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. : At this point is where it is common to find those who adhere to Scientism by dismissing the information To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. on some trumped up grounds ... ... and only accepting information for the latter element of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. : There is no logical reason to do so under these definitional conditions. For example, Campbell as a formally trained, educated and vocational scientist has written his TOE( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) with just such an approach. Your choice of Theism which in minimally better the Scientism, fails on the experimental grounds; as I understand, the rigorous experimentation Campbell has carried out in over 35 + years indicates there is no anthropomorphic Deity. What was found puts even that mental construct down to a lack of imagination in comparison.

I didn't see any disproof in Whitmore, and I'm not necessarily arguing for an "anthropomorphic God" beyond the fact that such a form is possible via omnipotence.

	I can agree that is a present failure as it is practiced, now. Do you define 'unprovable' in the material sense, only ?

I think most do. Aptitude in theoretical science is uncommon.

[Siprus]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Applied sciences. Scientism tries to squeeze everything within the pure sciences and it fails.

So how exactly does it fail. And I'm assuming that you have an alternative, please explain what conclusions this alternative leads to and what logic those conclusions are based on.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. describes people who constrain all knowledge to the natural sciences. Empiricism includes applied sciences. I didn't see any disproof in Whitmore, and I'm not necessarily arguing for an "anthropomorphic God" beyond the fact that such a form is possible via omnipotence. I think most do. Aptitude in theoretical science is uncommon.

Empiricism stand on it's own, while it as a methodology is used within natural sciences but is not limited to only the natural sciences.

And the natural sciences are only material, thus a failure when putting together a TOE, for example.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Siprus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So how exactly does it fail. And I'm assuming that you have an alternative, please explain what conclusions this alternative leads to and what logic those conclusions are based on.

Consider the cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde.

( Show Spoiler )

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Natural science fails to define their construction. Applied sciences of masonry, sculpting, construction, archaeology, and geology help us understand their origins despite having no known architects. A strictly naturalist interpretation would argue that since no architect is in evidence, the formations are natural.

Applied sciences allow us to reach beyond the missing evidence into reasoned thought. We can know by the Second Law of Thermodynamics that nature cannot build such a thing; this is an extremely low entropy conformation with high order in the sandstone. Therefore, it was designed by an intelligence even though one cannot be found. The low entropy is the evidence that nature is not the cause.

[Siprus]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Consider the cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde. ( Show Spoiler ) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Natural science fails to define their construction. Applied sciences of masonry, sculpting, construction, archaeology, and geology help us understand their origins despite having no known architects. A strictly naturalist interpretation would argue that since no architect is in evidence, the formations are natural. Applied sciences allow us to reach beyond the missing evidence into reasoned thought. We can know by the Second Law of Thermodynamics that nature cannot build such a thing; this is an extremely low entropy conformation with high order in the sandstone. Therefore, it was designed by an intelligence even though one cannot be found. The low entropy is the evidence that nature is not the cause.

To be honest you have no understanding of quantum physics or laws of thermodynamics, you should really go to some chemistry and physic classes and get your understanding of thermodynamics straight.

Anyway regarding your picture. We pretty much know that humans have lived on that are, and we know what kind of places human tend to prefer to build houses, we also know how humans have built houses.

So what you are saying that if it look designed it IS designed. So really believe that your gut feeling is always correct?

Anyway what does this has to do with god?

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Siprus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To be honest you have no understanding of quantum physics or laws of thermodynamics, you should really go to some chemistry and physic classes and get your understanding of thermodynamics straight.

Interesting. A rock-solid rebuttal I ever we heard one.

	Anyway regarding your picture. We pretty much know that humans have lived on that are, and we know what kind of places human tend to prefer to build houses, we also know how humans have built houses. So what you are saying that if it look designed it IS designed. So really believe that your gut feeling is always correct?

Lecture me on physics after you acquire reading skills. Deal? It's not even possible to derive this from my post.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So much for unprovable assertions To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. And tell me, what other "rational methods" are there? What is the great limitation of the scientific method?

I actually agree that there are other rational methods and ways of arriving at conclusions that give sound answers, and that not everything can be answered by scientific studies - or at least are practical to do so. I've mentioned
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that there are at least five (I've added one) kinds of rationality: deductive, formal logic, scientific inductive, individual inductive, and gut-level. Which method to use depends on a variety of factors, such as how much time you have, the importance of matter, and what exactly you're trying to learn. Generally, deductive reasoning is the most sound provided your premises are correct. Scientific inductive is best for material, factual matters which can be tested. If it can't be tested, then deductive fact-finding is useful. For individual life, your own experiences and observations fill your conclusions - you're not going to read in a journal why Bob from Accounting never answers your e-mails. Gut-level is best when you're making a quick decisions.

So, the first step is to determine what method we should use and go from there.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By nature I mean quantifiable and empirical observation. Freezing water is nature. It is repeatable, predictable, and observable. The Big Bang - "everything from nothing" is obviously not repeatable, not observable, and not predictable.

So you're comparing observations with theories. Too bad, this thread had potential, based on issues like, a question can never contain zero information. Or maybe with a precise definition of natural theories vs. supernatural theories.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you're comparing observations with theories.

How so?

	Too bad, this thread had potential, based on issues like, a question can never contain zero information. Or maybe with a precise definition of natural theories vs. supernatural theories.

False dilemma.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How so?

The Big Bang is a theory, not an observation. We can't observe it directly.

Like I said, I'd be interested if you could come up with a vigorous definition of "supernatural" that was not strictly negative - i.e. stuff that can't be explained. So far in this thread I see none.

[Light92]

Well, I'll try to give an answer.
I've always believed in science far more than religion, even when I used to be a Christian (I'm agnostic now). I'm a rationalist, and I think one's intelligence and efforts may allow him to reach ALMOST every target he wants. We'll never probably be able to give an answer to some questions like: "Is there life after death?" or "Who created the Universe?", but we still can try to explain everything out there. And reach a reasonable answer.
Look at what happened in the previous centuries. People died for nothing, just a cold was enough. Nowadays we know quite well how our body works and thanks to research the cures for more and more diseases have been discovered in the latest years. I'm sure in a few years we'll be able to cure cancer and manage to use stem cells perfectly. It's just a matter of time.

Science and technology will allow us to understand the world almost fully, more and more, as time goes by.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rationality (with an emotional side, indeed, nobody can be "fully" rational) helped the world far more than religion did in centuries and centuries. Hoping is alright, but if we can do something, we'll actually do it. Facts, not prayers.

[Contrapreneur]

Vogon Poet, your issues with science seem to be mainly with "why" questions, like why is there a restriction on the speed of light or what causes C14 to decay. Science can explain everything down to fundamental laws, but it's true that there is a fundamental point where science can no longer explain why something is the way it is (the "first cause" you are talking about, I guess). I think it is a prevalent view that such things just have no explanation; they are arbitrary. There has never been any other explanation, scientific or otherwise, that makes more sense than just accepting that some things are arbitrarily so based on exhaustive observation. I don't know of many people who, as you describe, try to fit these causal questions into a scientific paradigm. And we are not ignoring the question when we say the question itself is illogical: while everything that happens within the universe is causal, that does not mean that the universe itself and its fundamental properties must have a cause.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Light92 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, I'll try to give an answer. ...and thanks to research the cures for more and more diseases have been discovered in the latest years.

Isn't it curious the choice of words you used. We discover cures. I think that when we can truly say we "understand" the body, we will be able for the first time to "create" a cure rather than discover one manufactured by a living immune system. And frankly, you are quite generous in your estimate of how many ailments we have cured. The cold is still not among them; we merely assist our own bodies in defeating the virus. Modern medicine is properly a cheer leader to our own natural healing abilities. To date we have eradicated exactly one disease: Smallpox.

Science and technology will allow us to understand the world almost fully, more and more, as time goes by. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Rationality (with an emotional side, indeed, nobody can be "fully" rational) helped the world far more than religion did in centuries and centuries. Hoping is alright, but if we can do something, we'll actually do it. Facts, not prayers.

That seems a bit ingratuitous since the Catholic Church invented the scientific method, and the university sytem. All science is ultimately a product of religion.

	Originally Posted by Contrapreneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think it is a prevalent view that such things just have no explanation; they are arbitrary... And we are not ignoring the question when we say the question itself is illogical: while everything that happens within the universe is causal, that does not mean that the universe itself and its fundamental properties must have a cause.

It seems that you are suggesting that a thing that simply "is" has a default logical explanation that it is arbitrary (has no cause or governing mechanism whatsoever), and that causality is not all-inclusive in this universe nor is it necessary to have a cause for all things. Or perhaps you are just saying that this is the popular opinion (prevalent view).

Firstly I disagree that such a view is prevalent while 90% of humanity is theist. I think it's fair to say that things which elude causal definition very rarely get accepted as arbitrary in fact. Einstein himself was very uneasy at the implications of radioactive decay and was faithful that eventually quantum physics would discover something that explained the phenomenon in a non-arbitrary way. "God does not play dice with the universe," he said. There can be no "random" or "arbitrary" event within it.

Secondly, I would greatly like to see how a thing which defies explanation should be considered arbitrary by default. This appears to completely go against reason and the principles of science. It would seem more rational to use statistical frequentism and ascribe such governing principles to any other correlation we see in the universe. In science, we refer to things which "just are" and have universal correlation as a "scientific law." Such laws should not exist without a cause.

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Big Bang is a theory, not an observation. We can't observe it directly. Like I said, I'd be interested if you could come up with a vigorous definition of "supernatural" that was not strictly negative - i.e. stuff that can't be explained. So far in this thread I see none.

Can you please explain the qualifier, "not strictly negative" for me? I don't understand why dark is an invalid concept simply because it involves a strictly negative definition, or why supernatural is an invalid concept simply because it involves a strictly negative definition. What is it about negative definitions that make them less valid?

Also, theories gain their validity entirely from observation in fact. Repeatability is the driving principle which establishes that a hypothesis has merit. Consider several years back one team claimed to have created cold fusion. When other teams took their notes and repeated the experiment, nothing happened. The theory was not repeatable; it was not science. Likewise, if a "big bang" event occurred as a product of nature, then on some scale we should be able to replicate the conditions which caused it. If not, we do not in fact have a theory.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can you please explain the qualifier, "not strictly negative" for me? I don't understand why dark is an invalid concept simply because it involves a strictly negative definition, or why supernatural is an invalid concept simply because it involves a strictly negative definition. What is it about negative definitions that make them less valid?

You cannot define darkness without reference to light, whereas the reverse is not true. One can speak of "true nothingness" with no units, but that is simply non-existence. Why would science be concerned with things that don't exist?

	Also, theories gain their validity entirely from observation in fact. Repeatability is the driving principle which establishes that a hypothesis has merit. Consider several years back one team claimed to have created cold fusion. When other teams took their notes and repeated the experiment, nothing happened. The theory was not repeatable; it was not science.

Even if the team had succeeded, that would be a technology, not a theory.

	Likewise, if a "big bang" event occurred as a product of nature, then on some scale we should be able to replicate the conditions which caused it. If not, we do not in fact have a theory.

Two answers: does this also falsify "supernova theory?" Or, the replicable evidence for the BB is the same as for supernovas: telescope data, along with physical models that can be replicated by supercomputers and driven by accelerator experiments.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You cannot define darkness without reference to light, whereas the reverse is not true. One can speak of "true nothingness" with no units, but that is simply non-existence. Why would science be concerned with things that don't exist?

Because they objectively bear on epistemology. Darkness is a quality required to activate the street lights at night. Yes, it is actually measuring light, but the concept of "darkness" is an objective fact which can be used to cause some effect. A negative definition takes nothing away from the validity of the concept. Electricity itself is also a prime example. Is your computer being sourced by electrons, or by holes (the absence of an electron)? Either definition is equally valid.

	Even if the team had succeeded, that would be a technology, not a theory.

It would be the practical demonstration of a theory called, "cold fusion." This theory currently does not exist. If the event succeeded, then it would begin to exist.

	Two answers: does this also falsify "supernova theory?" Or, the replicable evidence for the BB is the same as for supernovas: telescope data, along with physical models that can be replicated by supercomputers and driven by accelerator experiments.

No it would not. The state of a star prior to a supernova is thought to be known. And a state after the event is thought to be known. The transition from one state (star) to another state (nebula/pulsar) can be calculated, and in some scale even replicated. A supernova event and the BB are completely unrelated and incompatible events. BB has no prior state.

[Daoist]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because they objectively bear on epistemology. Darkness is a quality required to activate the street lights at night. Yes, it is actually measuring light, but the concept of "darkness" is an objective fact which can be used to cause some effect. A negative definition takes nothing away from the validity of the concept. Electricity itself is also a prime example. Is your computer being sourced by electrons, or by holes (the absence of an electron)? Either definition is equally valid.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If your hypothesis is that electronics exist, and you don't find electrons, then you cannot conclude that electrons don't exist. You have simply failed to prove your hypothesis.

You can never prove that something doesn't exist. A theory that rests upon such propositions will fail, by definition.

By the way, computers run on electricity.

	It would be the practical demonstration of a theory called, "cold fusion." This theory currently does not exist. If the event succeeded, then it would begin to exist.

It would be an observation, which could be used to build a theory. Having built the technology does not signify there being a theory.

	No it would not. The state of a star prior to a supernova is thought to be known. And a state after the event is thought to be known. The transition from one state (star) to another state (nebula/pulsar) can be calculated, and in some scale even replicated. A supernova event and the BB are completely unrelated and incompatible events. BB has no prior state.

Where in the scientific method does it say that a prior state must be known? Which step exactly?

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like I said, I'd be interested if you could come up with a vigorous definition of "supernatural" that was not strictly negative - i.e. stuff that can't be explained. So far in this thread I see none.

I did, a while back. I'll repeat my reasoning.

1) We know that there is a word "super-natural" in common usage. We also know that there was a word "un-natural" in common usage. Thus we can see that there is a commonly held view, that there is something other than "natural".
2) What is called in modern slang "science", used to be rightly called "natural philosophy". So we know that what is in the category of the "natural", was what scientists used to study.
3) If the word "natural" includes everything, then it would be impossible to form a sentence with the terms super-natural or un-natural. So 1 & 2 cause a direct contradiction. Thus, we have proved via Reduction Ad Absurdum that the word "natural" does NOT include everything.
4) The etymology of the word "natural" comes from the Latin natura, which refers to the normal course of things.
5) Thus, when we consider the term "natural philosophy", the term refers to the subjects of normal behaviour, such as the orbits of the planets, the death of millions from smallpox, lightning, etc. When people referred to the super-natural, and the un-natural, this refers to that which does not normally occur. Thus, etymology confirms reason.

6) However, this leads on to a further problem, which is why we would even think of everything as natural. We wouldn't. Some things happen regularly. Some things do not.

7) However, a scientist's job is to try to understand natural things, and we also know that the failure rate for scientific theories is incredibly high. Even if a theory doesn't fail, as Karl Popper pointed out, scientific theories can be falsified at any time, but they can NEVER be verified. So the longer a theory is around, the more chance that it will be falsified and killed off. So it's an area of study that by the nature and the rules of the topic, normally would result in an incredibly pessimistic attitude about science. But scientists live by Publish or Perish. If they don't publish new theories on a regular basis, they lose their tenure, get kicked out of science, and can't get back in again. So to keep their job, they HAVE to publish on a regular basis.

8) No-one could stand to get up every morning to try to do something that is almost certain to fail, and even if it doesn't, will almost certainly fail later on. It's pointless. Even if they would still continue, they are paid for by us, and we wouldn't pay for scientists to come up with theories that are bound to fail. So, scientists HAVE to be ridiculously over-confident, in order to overcome the natural pessimism inherent in the subject itself. So scientists describe everything as "natural", in the normal course of things, and so part of their field of study, to convince themselves, and others, that they are not entirely wasting their time.

However, we have no need of such a subterfuge. So we can be more honest with ourselves. If something is "un-natural", we can say so freely. If something is "super-natural", that is, it is super to the normal course of things, that is, that it encompasses the natural and extends beyond it, then we are also free to say so. We are not trying to come up with theories which are individually almost bound to fail, and we are not trying to get paid for coming up with such theories either. So we have a freedom that scientists lack.

So in effect, when we get confused, this is because we confuse the scientific perspective with the common usage. This is because we are taught a lot of science, but very little clarity of thought, and almost nothing of epistemology or etymology, and so most of the things that we have been taught about science, we have been taught dogmatically.

[Daoist]

^Still, now we need a precise definition of "normal." Would we then call a "black swan" stock movement, orders of magnitude larger than normal, "supernatural?" The whole point of the "black swan" concept is that these are not normal.

[Kisai]

1) We know that there is a word "super-natural" in common usage. We also now that there was a word "un-natural" in common usage. Thus we can see that there is a commonly held view, that there is something other than "natural". 2) What is called in modern slang "science", used to be rightly called "natural philosophy". So we know that what is in the category of the "natural", was what scientists used to study. 3) If the word "natural" includes everything, then it would be impossible to form a sentence with the terms super-natural or un-natural. So 1 & 2 cause a direct contradiction. Thus, we have proved via Reduction Ad Absurdum that the word "natural" does NOT include everything.

You haven't proven anything except that humans have the ability to invent fiction. There's nomenclature for Batman and Spongebob Squarepants, yet it's understood that these things aren't real.

[Looksupordown]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm curious why many people do this. It is particularly prevalent on this forum, but in general I see many people assuming that all explanations must fall within nature. It's a paradox because in order to have this faith you have to reject a whole lot of empirical evidence. Like, you have to turn a blind eye to the First Cause and time's arrow, and the Cosmological Constant, and many many other known principles of nature. The way I liken people who do this is to imagine a marble sorting machine. The machine picks out all marbles that are not nearly perfectly round and discards them, and packages the rest for use in a fun game amonmg friends. But those in scientism turn that around to mean the "all marbles are perfectly round" because we don't see any defects. "Science" is the marble sorter, not the judge of truth in marble roundness! You can't say that because science can't use supernatural data that supernatural data does not exist. If nature is your gospel truth, do you even understand that your methods are eliminating data before you even get to see it? This defies reason to me.

There is no such thing as supernatural data! Science isolates components of our natural word empirically to give us answers. There is no such thing as supernatural. There are things we've figured out, and things we have not.