Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

I am not aware of any scientific or mathematical discipline where the personal beliefs of scientists is evidence of anything besides what they believe.

I strongly agree with godless dave here: can you really believe that a scientific fact can be determined by polling the personal beliefs of scientists, and that a number that depends on this fact can (based, in fact, on a poll asking a totally different question!) be plugged into a math formula?

Hint: you can use a poll to determine what percentage of USA scientists identify as Republican or Democratic, and use that number in Bayesian statistics to help predict the results of an election (although as usual you would have problems in creating a truly neutral question, the possibility that people might lie in a poll, determining how many scientists might vote in this election and how strong an effect party affiliation might have on the vote). So yes, you can use a poll if you wish to measure belief or one's normal practices (taking a car versus a bus to commute to work).

But it must be obvious to you that a poll of scientists cannot determine a scientific fact, such as "meteors are dust and rocks from outer space." If you did this poll in 1200, the answer among scientists would have been "no"; if you did it today, the answer would be "yes". Do you think meteors changed what they are in the intervening time?

Why even consult with your academic contact- you have in the past and then just rejected his answer, the same as you have done with the many statistics experts here (some of whom are academic scientists). You never even followed up with him as you had promised. Why bother him now?

 

[Loss Leader]

It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.

There is only one kind of evidence: something that makes a proposition more or less likely to be true.

Does the religion of a natural scientist make the existence of an afterlife more likely to be true? Of course not.

But, then, we're so far down the rabbit hole on this that it hardly matters. As near as I can tell, you're trying to support the proposition that:

1. A minority of natural scientists are atheists, so
2. A majority of natural scientists are religious, so
3. The religious ones probably believe in an afterlife, so
4. Those who believe in an afterlife think the "soul" is separate from the body, so
5. If the soul is separate from the body it can be a thing and not a process, so
6. A thing can be counted, so
7. It's possible to have an infinite number of things, so
8. You being picked from those things is infinitely unlikely, so
9. The universe cannot work the way it seems to, so
10. All natural scientists are completely wrong.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.

I know of only two "kinds" of evidence: real versus not. No, your "evidence" is not the "kind" that I am looking for.

 

[Mojo]

It just isn't the kind of evidence droid you're looking for.

FTFY.

 

[George]

What have you got against Susan Blackmore?

Aye I suppose once is enough, I wonder what she made of him.

 

[dlorde]

If we are all "special" then "specialness" loses any actual meaning.

He's confusing 'special' with 'unique'. We are all unique, but that alone doesn't make us special.

 

[Giordano]

He's confusing 'special' with 'unique'. We are all unique, but that alone doesn't make us special.

Oddly, this was the same problem Jabba had when contemplating that a hypothetical exact duplication would yield two "separate" but identical individuals versus two "different" individuals. You are right: it is important for Jabba to understand that "unique" individuals aren't inherently "special" in the way that would be required for Jabba's "proof".

But then, this thread went on and on trying to explain how separate is not the same as different in the way Jabba was interpreting it. So, I hope you have some spare time...

 

[Giordano]

Aye I suppose once is enough, I wonder what she made of him.

From what I have seen in observing others, prominent scientists receive all sorts of interesting mail of all kinds.

 

[pakeha]

I am not aware of any scientific or mathematical discipline where the personal beliefs of scientists is evidence of anything besides what they believe.

A good point.
Still, I can think of one branch where belief IS proof.
Of course I refer to the Shroudies. I have a fascinating video I could post up, if you like...

 

[Slowvehicle]

A good point.
Still, I can think of one branch where belief IS proof.
Of course I refer to the Shroudies. I have a fascinating video I could post up, if you like...

It's prolly about time.

Dooooo eeeeeet!

 

[Aepervius]

- From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God, whereas only about 30% of social scientists do not believe in God (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God, or an after-life – but, it does suggest that a significant percentage do. I’ll keep looking…

You need to precise what the geenral public believe to even have a comparison otehrwise the number is incorrect.

Anyway I prefer the Pew research which is far more precise :

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Scientist
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png

Compared to general public :
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif

Which match other statistic I saw over the years. Also technically (sadly I have no cite) young scientist are more likely to be atheist. So if you look at the age and look at the current generation (between 20 and 40 years old) you'll find even more atheist.

What does it says ? Nothing much IMHO. And certainly nothing at all to the topic at hand.

ALso note how few evangelical protestant there is among scientist compared to general public.

ETA: granted it does not show the difference bweteen social and natural scientist but who cares.

 

[Aepervius]

"Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected."


They do not state why they expected the opposite.

In fact I content the more you are into natural science, the LESS you are likely to search for a supernatural explanation... Since you already got a natural one.

 

[Aepervius]

1. A minority of natural scientists are atheists, so

Teh whole chain of so is stupid, but funnily enough if you read the pew research natural scientist are probably very near or over 50/50 now considering that there were back in 2009 :
17% atheist
11% agnostic
20% "nothing in particular" (duh ?)
4% refused/don't know

IIRC it is even worst when you go into particular science see :

http://www.openculture.com/2010/11/do_physicists_believe_in_god_.html

The Nottingham physicists are in some good company. According to a well-known 1997 study published in Nature, biologists within the National Academy of Sciences rejected God and immortality at rates of 65.2% and 69.0%. Meanwhile, when physical scientists were polled, the numbers rose to 79.0% and 76.3%. The summary originally published by Nature now appears here.

Hey jabba note how biologist reject immortality at rates of ~70%

 

[Giordano]

Hey jabba note how biologist reject immortality at rates of ~70%

Hey, so that's that: proof using Jabba's own logic that there is no immortality! Are we done now?

My back will be back. Maybe my front too.

 

[Akhenaten]

If we are all "special" then "specialness" loses any actual meaning.

Mind you, other meanings of "special" have actually gained currency as this thread has progressed. Even "progressed" has taken on a new meaning.

For different values of "meaning", of course.

 

[jond]

Mind you, other meanings of "special" have actually gained currency as this thread has progressed. Even "progressed" has taken on a new meaning.

For different values of "meaning", of course.

In a sense, this is correct.

 

[Giordano]

In a sense, this is correct.

What sense do you mean of sense?

 

[Akhenaten]

How is that evidence?

A certain percentage of scientists believing in god is not evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong. Even a certain percentage of scientists believing in an afterlife would not be evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong...

Dave,
- I disagree.

My Jabbanese - English dictionary translates this phrase as "Dave is right".

Go figure.

And, I especially disagree when it comes to Bayesian statistics.

That's just because you're especial.

It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.

That's what Anne Boleyn said to the Privy Council. Guess what happened next.

- I'll try to get back in touch with the Union Stat Professor to see what he says about this...

I think you should ask the Wangers.

 

[Giordano]

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.
- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.
- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.
- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...
- I'll be back.

Some interesting questions if you are maintaining that only conscious things are special (I presume from this that Dung beetles and I are both special, but Dung beetles less so). What of non-conscious things? I have a fern in my house: is it not special? It can photosynthesize, and I can not; isn't that pretty special? When looked at in detail, my fern is different in appearance from any other fern; isn't that special? What are the chances of that particular fern existing?

Even unliving things: I have a meteorite at home. It flew through space for 100s of millions of years, and made supersonic noises when it finally entered our atmosphere. I have done neither; isn't my meteorite special? To my knowledge, there are a lot more people on Earth than identified meteorites.

 

[pakeha]

It's prolly about time.

Dooooo eeeeeet!

Ah, well, if you insist...
[youtube]bbl4EmoH_jg[/youtube]

You'll recall Dame Isabel Piczek, an artist transformed into a particle scientist by the Shroudies.

In the case of the shroud, you could be forgiven for thinking the faith of the investigators influenced their research. however, that may not be what Jabba had in mind with his thoughts on faith in the scientific world.